Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Trials (Mentally Unfit Defendants)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that just and effective procedures are available in cases where individuals who may have been found unfit to plead to serious criminal charges subsequently experience marked improvement in their mental state.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Rrynmor John): There are inherent difficulties in dealing with the situation of persons who are mentally unfit to stand trial. The whole area of the law governing mental disability in relation to criminal trial is currently under review, in the light of the recommendations of Lord Butler's Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend accept that in cases such as that involving my constituent, Ian Adams, the process of consideration seems to be extremely protracted? Does my hon. Friend agree that as individual liberty is so important, urgent consideration should be given to there being no detention unless there has been aconviction?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend will realise that there are complex matters to be considered when referring to the case of his constituent, Mr. Adams. The Director of Public Prosecutions is currently considering whether a trial is appropriate. As soon as I have a reply I shall contact my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet at the rumours surrounding the prisoner Myra Hindley? Will he still the anxiety of those who fear that she will be released soon?

Mr. John: The hon. Member will know that there is a procedure which must be gone through before any life sentence prisoner is released on licence. All that I can tell the hon. Member is what I have told other hon. Members in correspondence—that there is certainly no


prospect of an early release for Miss Hindley.

Mr. Christopher Price: When reviewing the position of mentally retarded people before the courts, will my hon. Friend bear in mind not only the Butler Committee but the Fisher Report, since that concerns the Confait case, involving a constituent of mine who has a mental age of eight and who managed to confess to a murder that he could not have committed? Will my hon. Friend take the Fisher Report into full account?

Mr. John: Of course I shall take the report into account. It is an extremely serious report, which obviously we shall bear in mind. However, the subject of the Question was unfitness to plead, whereas in the Confait case that was not so.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the laws on animal welfare.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations about all aspects of cruelty to animals and animal welfare.

Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that there is a high and probably rising degree of public concern about this matter, which the standard Home Office replies fall far short of allaying? What progress is being made on the proposals that were brought forward on this matter last year by the group led by Lord Houghton?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals put forward by Lord Houghton are being carefully considered. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already had one meeting with Lord Houghton. I have had a meeting with him, and we are to have a third meeting with his group in the near future. We are considering revision of the annual returns in order to make more information available to the public. We are also considering the exact constitution of the advisory committee.

Mr. Lipton: When considering animal welfare, will the hon. Lady bear in mind

that some of us would like to see a hare coursing Bill on the statute book at some time this Session?

Dr. Summerskill: As I was involved in trying to get such a Bill through last Session, but was unsuccessful, I naturally agree with my hon. Friend.

Election Expenses

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is taking any steps to initiate discussions on the increase of election expenses for parliamentary elections.

Mr. John: It would be appropriate for this matter to be among the first items to be considered by a new Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Marten: That is precisely the point that worries us. There is no Speaker's Conference, and the Government seem to be dragging their feet. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his friends in the Cabinet to get a move on?
On the question of direct elections to the European Parliament, if they eventually happen, may we have an assurance from the Government that no EEC money will come into this country to support parties fighting that election?

Mr. John: I think that in the second part of the question the hon. Gentleman is trading upon my good nature with regard to that subject.
On the first part of the question, the setting up of a Speaker's Conference depends not only upon the Government but upon reaching agreement with the party leaders about the terms. We should bear in mind the possibility, if the disagreement persists, of a different way of dealing with expenses for elections.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Following on the last questioner, may I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department is absolutely clear and ahead with its preparations for direct elections when the Bill comes before the House of Commons?

Mr. John: In the classic phrase, we our using our best endeavours.

Prisoners (Transit Security)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement


about security arrangements following the preliminary inquiries into the escape of William Hughes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): No, Sir. Until I receive the report of the inquiry currently being conducted by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service and the more detailed report of the Chief Constable of Derbyshire I have nothing to add to the statement that I made on 17th January.

Mr. Whitehead: Yes, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the grave disquiet felt by many people in the rural areas of North Derbyshire, where these atrocities took place, as more is learned about this case? Will he also bear in mind the considerable disquiet in Leicester Prison and in the Prison Service in general about what happened? When he receives the report will he undertake not to close his mind to a public inquiry, which many of us believe is necessary?

Mr. Rees: As I said in the House the other day, let us look at the detailed report that I get from the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service, and if that shows that there are general problems of course I shall consider holding a general inquiry.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not seeking to place the Home Secretary in a difficult position before the report is forthcoming, but will he give an assurance to the House that he will ensure that on all future occasions dangerous prisoners of the type of William Hughes, when being transported from prison to court or from court to prison or from prison to prison, will be transported in a proper official custodial vehicle—a prison van—and will be properly handcuffed to two prison officers?

Mr. Rees: This is what we shall have to consider when we receive the report. In the recent debate I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that the rules are in the Library. There are proper rules. We are now trying to discover whether they were carried out.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that of course the right hon. Gentleman should see the report, which he hopes to receive in the very near future, but will he nevertheless take very seriously the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North

(Mr. Whitehead)? Does he appreciate that everything that I have been told since the event leads me to the conclusion that I was right on that occasion to demand an independent public inquiry? I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that in the end that is what is going to happen. I hope that he will come to that decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly take that into account, but I hope that the information that the right hon. Gentleman has will be passed on to the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service or to the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, because they have to make the evaluation on which I must judge.

Mr. Edward Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue instructions that all prison officers accompanying prisoners to court shall be supplied with details of the prisoners' record.

Mr. John: Prison officers are taught during basic training that they must acquaint themselves with the details of the prisoners they are to escort. Escorts to court are supplied with copies of all remand warrants and bail warrants. What further instructions my right hon. Friend issues will depend upon his consideration of the report by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service on the circumstances of William Thomas Hughes' escape from prison custody.

Mr. Gardner: Can the Minister confirm that the criminal record of William Hughes was well known to the police? Is he aware, for example, that Superintendent John Brown of the Lancashire Constabulary at Blackpool was able to warn the Derbyshire police, before Hughes was traced and after his escape, that Hughes was in fact a violent and dangerous man? Can the Minister say why vital information of this kind, which was readily available to the police, was not known to the prison authorities responsible for the safe custody of this violent man?

Mr. John: If I could and did say that, there would be no point in awaiting the results of the inquiry. That is what the inquiry is about and that is what will become apparent when the results of the inquiry are communicated to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rost: Why is the report about this tragic incident so long in reaching the Minister?

Mr. John: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the report has been a long time. It will be received soon by my right hon. Friend and will be considered expeditiously.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the widespread concern not just in Derbyshire but in many other parts of the country, will my hon. Friend agree to consider publishing the report if he is not going to agree to an independent inquiry?

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend made that point to the House when he answered the debate last Thursday.

Deportees

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that people who are under threat of deportation are given such information in relation to allegations against them as will not entail disclosure of sources of evidence.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is already the case.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an assurance was given by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and that failure to fulfil it in the two cases at present before us means that it is impossible not only to prepare a defence to the charges but also to know their nature or, indeed, the length of time covered by the charges? Is not this totally against the concept of justice as we know it in this country?

Mr. Rees: I say to my hon. Friend, so that the record is clear, that with regard to deportation I deport in the following cases—following a court recommendation; for breach of a condition of entry or over-staying; if I deem it to be conducive to the public good; and when the person concerned is a member of the family of a person already ordered to be deported—and in all those four cases there are appeals. What my predecessor was concerned with was the question whether it was conducive to the public good on security grounds. I have his statement before me. What is quite clear

is that neither the source of evidence nor evidence that can lead to disclosure of sources can be revealed to the person concerned. That is what I have to work on, and if anybody can suggest a better system of working, given that basic fact, I shall of course listen to him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not correct that in the Agee case it has manifestly not been the case that the deportee has been given the details of what is alleged against him, consistent with the proviso contained in this Question? All that he knows is that an allegation has been made that he consorted with foreign agents. He does not even know which country the agents are alleged to have represented. He does not know in what circumstances it is alleged. He does not know what the information is that he is supposed to have communicated. Surely the principle is clear, but in this case the details have not been adhered to, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) indicated, in 1971, they would be.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend did not listen to the three strands or aspects of the information that I gave to the House concerning Mr. Agee. As I am sure my hon. Friend accepts, there is not an acceptable way in which security service information can be tested in public. I know of no way by which this can be done. It is a judgment that I made in the first instance, and anybody who looks at the case will know that there were ways in which I could have done this without its being made public. I felt it right to make it public. I am not so silly as not to have imagined all the implications that would follow from what I have done in public and what is said. I thought it right for the State that it be done in this way. There is no acceptable way in which security confirmation can be tested in public.

Chilean Refugees

Mrs. Millie Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present position on the admission of Chilean refugees to this country; and what period elapses before an individual is cleared for entry to the United Kingdom.

Dr. Summerskill: Up to and including 31st January 1977, 1,873 persons are


known to have arrived. The period which elapses between application and clearance for entry varies from case to case.

Mrs. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the time that is taken in each case? Is she also aware of an allegation that the chief adjudicator dealing with these cases has made a statement that he is not inclined to admit supporters of the former Allende régime? [Interruption.]

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the concern that is felt about delays in entry. I can assure my hon. Friend that he has met interested bodies and will examine the procedures. Although adjudicators are appointed by the Hom Secrtary, they are not answerable to him for the way in which they carry out their duties. Under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 adjudicators operate under the general provisions of the Council on Tribunals. I am sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend and the noises of other hon. Members will be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Flannery: The joy on the Opposition Benches as a result of my hon. Friend's answer is quite obvious to all my hon. Friends. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, from whom I recently received a curt reply to a letter, to realise that there is demoralisation among the Chilean community in this country about the slowness of the granting of visas compared with the position some months ago, and that the chief adjudicator and the Glasgow adjudicator have actually called members of the Socialist Party of Chile Communist agitators.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about the Soviet Union?

Mr. Flannery: I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to what is being said from the Opposition Benches. The adjudicators have said that members of the Socialist Party of Chile are Communist agitators. They have used this deep political bias as a reason for not allowing into this country honest political refugees from the Fascist Government of Chile. I ask my hon. Friend to take steps—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is just coming to a conclusion. Mr. Flannery.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those who are expressing their joy on the Opposition Benches were wholeheartedly opposed to the democracy of the Allende Government in Chile? Will he help these refugees—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Go back to Russia.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend help these refugees, who are in danger of death, to come to this country?

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman wait until after Questions?

Mr. Heffer: No, Mr. Speaker, I shall not wait. On every occasion that Chile is mentioned we get jeers and catcalls from the Opposition Benches that indicate that Opposition Members are totally Fascist in their attitude. When we raise the matter we are asked "Why don't you go back to Russia?" We are getting a little tired of Opposition Members using such occasions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is deep feeling in the House on this issue. Perhaps it is not for me to say this, but I regard the hon. Gentleman as a very good House of Commons man. Perhaps he will now come to his point of order.

Mr. Heffer: I am asking for your protection, Mr. Speaker. For my hon. Friends, this matter is not a joke. The House is a democratic institution and my hon. Friends and I are concerned—even if Opposition Members are not—with democracy in every part of the world—Russia, Chile, and everywhere else. We are sick and tired of being subjected to barrages of animal noises by Opposition Members when we raise these matters. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that from time to time there are shouts from both sides. There are issues on which people feel very deeply. We must now try to get on with our business. I believe that the Minister was about to reply.

Dr. Summerskill: I shall make two quick replies to two of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The nature of immigration control in this country is different from that of most other countries, in that we rely on control before or at entry, and not after entry. Under our process, which I think my hon. Friends prefer, people are certain of their status when they enter the country.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend would not be right to make any comment on the comments made by adjudicators when he is frequently one of the parties to the appeal being decided. However, my right hon. Friend has been in the Chamber and has heard the criticisms made. I am sure that the adjudicators will be aware of them, too.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Lady aware that we on the Opposition Benches, and probably those in other parts of the House, prefer to have a country in which people are not required to have passes that they must produce to the police to show that they are in the right place or right part of the country? We prefer to continue with a system where entry is checked before arrival.

Dr. Summerskill: That is exactly what I am saying. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the refugees are submitted to any delay. My right hon. Friend is examining the procedure.

Ex-Police Constable Betteridge

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire about the case of the former P.C. Betteridge of the Bedfordshire Police; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a similar Question by the hon. Gentleman on 18th November.

Mr. Hastings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office still refuses to give the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire any explanation of the extraordinary judgment of the Home Secretary's predecessor in this case? Is he aware that

in a debate in June, in another place, it was clear that Mr. Jenkins had discussed his reasons in detail with my noble Friend Lord Hailsham, who gave it as his opinion that it would be much better if they were given in public? Moreover, Mr. Jenkins discussed his reasons yet again at his New Bridge Lecture in July, yet any explanation is denied to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only thing he can do to clear up this unfortunate matter, which is a grave and deep injustice to a senior police officer, is to go into the case again and offer the Chief Constable some reason for Mr. Jenkins overturning his judgment?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman has me in difficulties when he says that the New Bridge Lecture gave the reasons but that people are unaware of them. The lecture was published, and if the reasons were then given presumably all those affected could read them and glean those reasons for themselves. The previous Home Secretary said that he would consider for the future whether reasons could be given. We are considering this matter, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it does raise some important and difficult problems. We have not come to a final conclusion.

Merseyside Police

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received for an increase in the establishment of the Merseyside police force; and what action he proposes to take.

Dr. Summerskill: No formal proposal has been put to my right hon. Friend, but discussions have taken place between the chief constable, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and Home Office officials about an increase. I understand that the police authority is now consulting the county council about an increase of 110.

Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that very shortly she can expect a proposal from the police authority for such an increase? Is she aware that the Merseyside Police have to deal with increasing city and urban crime as well as being in a key position regarding security arrangements between England and Northern Ireland? The bomb that


went off in the city yesterday was one that got through. It was not the first attempt and probably it will not be the last. Will she give both aspects her consideration when she receives a formal request for an increase in establishment?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that the points that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into consideration during the discussions, and that my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to any proposal based on the results of the discussions.

Vandalism and Violence

Mr. Hodgson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to produce to reduce levels of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to produce to reduce the level of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to make to reduce levels of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have had preliminary discussions with chief officers of police, who I know give as much priority as they can to tackling vandalism in conjunction with local individuals and organisations. I am also planning with my colleagues a wider conference to see whether there is any further action which can be taken.
The Criminal Law Bill—now in another place—proposes substantial increases in the maximum fines and amounts of compensation which offenders may be ordered by magistrates' courts to pay for offences of vandalism.

Mr. Hodgson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because more than 100 crimes against the person are now committed every week in the West Midlands, and because the West Midlands police force is 11 per cent. under strength, people in areas such as Stechford are frightened

to walk the streets? What will he do to remedy that appalling situation?

Mr. Rees: Because that sort of statement is linked to a by-election, it makes nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's question. The people are not afraid to walk the streets of Britain. The number of policemen is increasing all the time. A total of £250 million more is being spent by this Government than the last on law and order. The police forces will know what to make of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are pure poppycock, are made just for political advantage, and are no use to me in my fight for law and order.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the police forces are still undermanned when there seem to be a large number of people available for work?

Mr. Rees: The number in the police goes up and up every month. There are more than 2,000 extra policemen in the inner city areas. In the recent debate I sought not to make party capital out of that just because it had happened in the past two years, but I do make party capital out of the spending of £250 million extra. There are more policemen. Every police force is allowed to recruit to a higher level than the year before. There is no problem in that regard, but dealing with vandalism is not a question of numbers; vandalism is a deep-seated malaise of modern life. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Home Office report on the matter, which goes into the wider issues.

Mr. Steen: In view of the dramatic rise in the number of offences of criminal and malicious damage, which have risen from 14,500 in 1969 to 78,500 in 1975, what steps do the Government now propose to take to tackle the problem, other than to set up more committees and inquiries?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A committee can only listen to the ideas of people on the ground in the areas concerned. When I have talked to people about the matter I have said that I do not want just to set up another committee but that it is a matter of what is done by the chief constables. Some have individual committees. What matters is what is done


in the areas themselves. No statements from this House or things of that nature will help. We have found that within days of our debating such issues in the House the amount of vandalism increases. I do not know whether there is a psychological reason.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend may say in all sincerity what he said to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) in reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I can give him letters from constituents who say—and we know that it is true—that they dare not walk in certain streets, not only at night but during the day. I think that all hon. Members could give him similar letters. Is it right that an old lady of 70 or 80 should be afraid to do her shopping because of the fear of being mugged or set upon? Will my right hon. Friend try to do something about that? Not only the old people but even young women are now afraid to walk in some streets of our cities.

Mr. Rees: What my hon. Friend said is correct. There are certain areas where there are problems, but that was not the question to which I was replying. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) made an assertion about Britain as a whole. There are areas where there ate problems, and it is locally that they will have to be dealt with. That will not come about through statements by me. I shall have information about the conference passed on. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police and other police forces.

Mr. Alison: Is the Home Secretary aware—I am sure that he must be—that his own Standing Committee's report on vandalism, to which he referred just now, makes the point that there are already adequate powers for substantial fines for vandalism, including fines on parents and guardians, and that the trouble is that the penalties are not severely enough applied by the magistrates? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the magistracy asking it to have another look at the levels of fines being imposed under existing statutes to deal with vandalism?

Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We have increased some fines, and parents must pay in certain

cases. I cannot be responsible for magistrates, but everybody in the community is aware of what is required now. I shall have a word with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we in no way want to condone criminal damage or violence, many of those involved have been subjected to unemployment or are socially deprived, and that it would be far more productive to tackle the problem at its roots rather than to have a hysterical rush to harsher measures, which will not be effective in any case? Will my right hon. Friend consider something that may be a positive help? Will he consider extending a variant of the community service order to, for example, juveniles, so that they can put something back into the community for the damage they have caused?

Mr. Rees: I think that the community service orders in general, which started under the previous Government, or were developed under them, should be further developed first. Deprivation is a factor to which I have put my mind a great deal since becoming Home Secretary. Without moving away from agreement with my hon. Friend on that, I should say that the cause of vandalism is deeper than deprivation. There are many factors. It is because it is so complicated that vandalism is difficult to deal with.

Racialist Propaganda

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman designate of the Commission for Racial Equality complaints of racialist propaganda on the media.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I look forward to consultation with Mr. Lane and the Commission for Racial Equality on all matters concerning race relations.

Mr. Allaun: Should not a distinction be drawn between freedom of political speech for Left, Right or Centre and racial propaganda? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consult the main parties on this proposition, that if the National Front or any other racialist party publishes election material or an election manifesto containing racially objectionable matter, it should not be granted


television or radio programmes as at present?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend was good enough to discuss this matter with me in recent weeks. As he knows, party political broadcasts are a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in consultation with other parties. I must not interpret the law and get into hot water on that, but I understand that the incitement provisions of existing legislation, including those yet to be brought into effect, apply in this area to anyone who does the kind of thing that my hon. Friend has described under the guise of doing it electorally.

Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Home Secretary observed prejudice by the BBC in the context of Rhodesia? Is he aware that the observations, the lightest word, of every black President or even of the most notorious guerrilla receive maximum billing, while the perfectly natural anxieties, whatever the blames of Government, of the European population—and, as it seems, because they are European—receive no adequate expression?

Mr. Rees: I cannot agree. With my responsibilities for the BBC, I observe that there seems to be a subjective evaluation of what comes over the media. On the basis of the same information, some people say that it goes one way and others that it goes the other way. It is rather like the statement on the flyleaf of a book about the American Civil War, which said "This is an objective account of the American Civil War from the Southern point of view."

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British public are well able to exercise common sense on these matters, and that if we were to take specific action or legislative steps it would be likely to produce an undesirable reaction?

Mr. Rees: I am not in business to censure the media. That would be a move in the direction of the road to dictatorship, whether of the Left or of the Right.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the provision on racial encitement in the Race Rela-

tions Act was strongly opposed by the Opposition and that I predicted that it would have dangerous effects and might infringe the freedom of speech—an aspect of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Does he agree that there is a great danger that this will continue to happen? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Rees: That provision, which amends the Public Order Act, is not yet in force. I have carefully examined the matter, but I think the best thing to do is see what happens when the provision becomes law.

Immigrants

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of persons from foreign countries who will enter the United Kingdom in 1977 with the intention of making it their permanent home.

Dr. Summerskill: It would not be practicable to base an estimate on people's intentions. The circumstances in which foreign nationals may be granted settlement and the restrictions on the admission for temporary purposes of persons who may intend settlement are indicated in the Immigration Rules.

Mr. Viggers: What effect does the substantial rate of immigration have on unemployment and Government expenditure?

Dr. Summerskill: It is not possible to identify the exact effect of immigration on employment. I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question refers to immigration from foreign countries. Comparable Commonwealth figures are given in the published Home Office immigration statistics.

Mr. Buchan: If I may revert to the matter of adjudication under the immigration legislation, with particular reference to adjudication on Chilean entrants, will my hon. Friend take properly on board the nature of these determinations? Not only have they been insulting attempted entrants; they have been gratuitously insulting to the people of this country, including my constituents, who object to the Pinochet régime. If the Home Office does not accept direct responsibility, will my hon. Friend at


least accept that since the Home Secretary appointed these adjudicators he has the power to "unappoint" them?

Dr. Summerskill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get in that supplementary question, but I hope that he will read what I said about adjudicators in answer to a previous Question. Although my right hon. Friend appoints adjudicators, I would remind the House that they operate under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I suggest that he reads that Act, which will give him a full answer to his question.

Immigrants' Fiancés

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to restrict the number of male fiancés from Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries entering the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am anxious to prevent abuse of the entitlement, not only by people from Commonwealth countries but by those from other parts of the world.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Home Secretary have in mind the comparatively recent statistics from the Home Office, which show that between the first quarter of 1975 and the first quarter of 1976 the number of immigrants from the Commonwealth in this category increased by about 50 per cent.? Does he agree that the right of entry of fiancés from the Commonwealth should now be stopped immediately, and that this should be done partly in the interests of Asian girls brought up in this country who find themselves forced into arranged marriages, but mostly in the interests of all the people of this country in an effort to improve race relations by restricting immigration?

Mr. Rees: The change was made by my predecessor. The numbers have risen in this respect. The hon. Gentleman suggests that because women who come into the country in this way are protected by the law—unlike the men—we should specifically deal with the matter in the way he suggests. That is not the way in which we should proceed. I am examining the question of abuses, and those abuses go right across the board. I have found significant abuses not just by

Commonwealth citizens but on a larger scale from people in other parts of the world. I hope to come to the House with steps to deal with the matter.

Mrs. Jeger: Surely if my right hon. Friend sought to make a judgment between male fiancés and female fiancées he would run into trouble over the Sex Discrimination Act.

Mr. Rees: So far as I am responsible for that legislation, I am not unaware of that consideration.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman referred to changes made by his predecessor. Does he realise that another change made by another predecessor—namely, the present Prime Minister, who was Home Secretary in 1968—restricted this very category of immigrants, because at that time the figures of immigrants, although lower than the present ones, were considered to be too high? Will he consider the need to take steps similar to those taken by the Home Secretary at that time?

Mr. Rees: On that occasion there was a particular purpose. I was pointing to a recent change in the law of this country —a law that I am in no position to break. There are aspects that could be developed, and there are abuses that need to be examined.

MUCKLE FLUGGA

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay a visit to Muckle Flugga.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): As I informed the hon. Member on the 25th January, 27th January and 1st February, I have no present plans to visit Scalloway and Bressay—to which I must now add Muckle Flugga—or, indeed, any other part of Shetland.

Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit the three inhabitants on Muckle Flugga or any of the other islands in the Shetlands he would find the people there extremely disappointed by the Government's insensitive attitude to the legitimate fears of Shetland as a result of the Government's devolution proposals? Did not the Prime Minister over-react to the situation by dismissing


Parliamentary Private Secretaries for supporting the reasonable demands of the Shetland people? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to listen sympathetically to the reasonable demands of the Shetlands not for independence but for safeguards?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problems of some of the islands, which in due course the hon. Gentleman no doubt will also request me to visit, such as Unst, Yell and Fetlar, Lerwick and many other delectable places. But I cannot accept that the purpose of the Question is to elicit any idea that the Government are insensitive in these matters, because that is not true. Scottish Ministers have visited the islands, and there have been discussions. We have offered discussions to the people of Shetland about these matters, and they are still open. I am sure that if those discussions take place, the people of the Shetlands will not have to look as far as Kingston upon Thames to obtain support from their own Member of Parliament.

Mr. Grimond: I sympathise with the Prime Minister in his geography lesson, but I hope that he and other people will bear in mind that there are other problems in Shetland besides devolution. He will realise that questions of transport, freight and fishing are more important to ordinary people. He will be aware that the only amendment so far accepted by the Government to the Scotland and Wales Bill is an amendment that I tabled. There are further amendments seeking to protect the position of the Shetlands, which the Secretary of State for Scotland, without committing himself, has said he will examine.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the acceptance of his amendment. It goes to show that the Government are willing to give careful consideration to these matters.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are people much nearer home than Muckle Flugga who share the opinion of the Shetlands inhabitants about devolution and about the guillotine motion? If he seeks to persuade hon. Members who are against devolution by dining with them, would it not be more economical of his

time if he were to dine with us all at the same time—provided that he can find a dining room big enough!

The Prime Minister: My dining habits, which, truth to tell, are frugal enough, seem to be getting a lot of attention recently. I am bound to say that disappointing though it may be, and though it may seem less exciting and romantic, it so happens that it is the custom of the trades union group of officers, after a speaker has addressed it, to invite him to dinner. I was very glad to accept the invitation. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend but we did not mention even once the Scotland and Wales Bill—which was a great relief to all concerned.

POWER PLANT INDUSTRY

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Industry, Energy and Employment in the implementation of measures to ensure the survival of the power plant industry in the light of the CPRS report.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the level of unemployment in my constituency and in those around it on Tyneside which depend on C. A. Parsons Limited and Clarke Chapman for part of their industrial prosperity? Is he further aware that the placing of the Drax B order, following the consultation process, is critical to my constituents, 900 of whom face redundancy in the near future? Does he realise that long-term discussions about mergers should not be used to hold up this decision?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is persistent in his questions on this matter, and with every justification. I am aware of the importance of the Drax B order. This is clearly bound up with the discussions taking place among the Departments concerned, the turbine manufacturers and the boilermakers. All of these are linked. I can promise my hon. Friend that a decision will not take many months, as may have been suggested. There has to be proper consideration when many thousands of jobs are involved together with substantial capital investment. We shall take the proper time, but no more, to reach a conclusion

Mr. Rost: Rather than provide subsidies to build power stations that we do not need at present, would it not be more sensible to provide the incentives for the industry to develop export markets to cater for world demand that does exist?

The Prime Minister: Building power stations that we do not require is not the whole of the problem. There is also the question whether we should seek to retain —in my view we should—a power plant industry. That is equally important. The power plant industry may require domestic orders if it is to secure export orders. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it may well be that if we are to get into the world league for exports of this plant he should not take such an antediluvian view about this. We shall need considerable rationalisation to create units large enough to compete.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people, and almost certainly all those in the mining industry, including those who represent it here, want to see the fulfilment of the Drax B project as quickly as possible? Will he bear in mind that some of us are concerned about the stories circulating in Parliament and outside about the way in which Arnold Weinstock is using his muscle to get the contracts and push out Parsons while making conciliatory gestures in respect of Meriden? Can my right hon. Friend shed a little light on that matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe more than about 10 per cent. of the stories I read in the newspapers, and I advise my hon. Friend not to do so either. As for the coal-fired stations, I have always been a believer in using our indigenous resources as far as we can. I have a record on this. I certainly promise my hon. Friend that the matter will be taken very fully into consideration.

Later—

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to me at Question Time, my right hon. Friend used the word "months" in connection with problems that are affecting my constituency most seriously. If "months" is the word that he intended to use, it will

create great anxiety in my constituency. May I give him this opportunity to clear the matter up?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman really means, will I give the Prime Minister the opportunity? I do not see any movement on the right hon. Gentleman's part.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when he last took the chair at NEDC.

The Prime Minister: I took the chair at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday at which representatives from the trade unions, management and Government reaffirmed their commitment to the industrial strategy and reviewed the valuable reports of the sector working parties. There was agreement on the next steps to be taken, and on the need for action at company level, including the implications for investment, manpower, finance, product development and marketing. Discussions also covered a number of other matters, including prospects for employment and economic growth. The Government undertook to look into a number of points raised by the trade union representatives about manpower training.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Although things are looking much better at the moment, with interest rates coming down, the pound strong and the industrial strategy on course, would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for people's expectations to be raised too high too soon? Is it not clear that there will be a need for a further period of restraint and that the decay of a decade in British industry cannot be cleared away in a matter of minutes?

The Prime Minister: That is a fair way of putting the proposition. It is one which, in their more rational moments, has the support of the Conservative Opposition. They believe that it will take a considerable time to repair


the ravages of the last decade. I turn to my bedside reading:
It is idle to talk as so often before of the economic miracle that is round the corner. The foundations of our economic health will not be relaid in less than a decade.
I promise my hon. Friend that "The Right Approach" makes very good reading for quotations. What it says is correct. This is what we have constantly said to the country.
I am glad to say that sterling is now more stable and looks like continuing that way. This enables us to turn to the more important problems in some ways of getting the restructuring of British industry right and of making certain that the sector working parties' reports are translated into action.

Sir P. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to encourage the nationalised industries to adopt the Bullock Report recommendations before any legislation for the private sector is introduced?

The Prime Minister: The Government are about to embark on a series of consultations on the Bullock Report and until we have done so I prefer not to state a position.

Mrs. Castle: Since there is a considerable amount of agreement with private industry in Neddy over the industrial strategy, can my right hon. Friend tell us why there are as yet no planning agreements?

The Prime Minister: To tell my right hon. Friend the truth, I cannot. It seems clear, and I think this is gradually getting home to industry, that it has made a political bogy of this issue when many of the things that are being discussed in the sector working parties—such things as I have referred to dealing with the implications for investment and finance and product development—are exactly the sort of things the planning agreements would be about. This is beginning to get home. Sometimes it takes rather a long time to get it across to people. I may say that I made the point strongly at NEDC yesterday.

Mr. Crouch: Can the right hon. Gentleman say something more to us about this atmosphere of agreement—which he said he sensed when he spoke

at the NEDC meeting yesterday—between employers and the trade unions, because we would all be very much heartened if he could give some encouragement to the whole nation and say that he intends to prevent the two sides of industry from entering into a period of trench warfare over the question of industrial democracy?

The Prime Minister: The House knows my attitude on this. I am certainly doing my best to prevent a period of trench warfare on any of these issues. The regeneration of British industry can only be achieved by co-operation and it is in the limited areas where men are working together in their own industries that we are beginning to see this happen. I shall, therefore, continue along these lines and do my best to ensure that in these areas of common interest there is a consensus wherever I can promote it.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for regional development.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 20th January.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is now a total void in the Government's regional policies and that, following the sudden and unpremeditated withdrawal of regional employment premium, no new measures have been advanced to stimulate industrial development in the development areas?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that. New measures are constantly being considered in this area and, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, it is the strong view of the Government that, while regional employment premium was successful in its initial stages, it has outlived its usefulness. We are constantly considering how best we can help the regions. I have already said that unemployment is changing its character, not only in this country but elsewhere.

Mr. Bagier: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the last time the


Northern Region had a Minister responsible for it he was a Minister without real power, without a direct voice in the Cabinet? Is it not a fact that some of the major fears which hon. Members representing the Northern Region have about the devolution Bill and about what is happening in Scotland and Wales—with their Secretaries of State and the structure that is suggested—arise from the feeling that regions such as ours which are suffering tremendous unemployment problems could be left out in the cold? Would not an appointment of the kind I have described help to alleviate some of these fears?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of those feelings. I myself represent a development area. But I do not believe that they are justified from what I see of the way in which Government policies are developing. It is easy to propose that the appointment of another Minister would solve a problem, but the problem of the development areas cuts across the responsibilities of a great many Departments. I believe that the Government's system of co-ordination and of Cabinet examination ensures that no region is left out of account when these matters are being looked at.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As the Prime Minister is in a mood for telling the truth today—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady meant to say "today".

Mrs. Ewing: Perhaps I should start again. May I ask the Prime Minister to tell the truth on the additionality question of grants from the Regional Fund of the EEC? Will he assure us that such grants are not simply regarded by the Government as a way of saving Government money on regional spending? Will he recognise that that is not the purpose for which these grants were made and that there is an additionality principle, which is recognised by the member States? Will he come clean on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problem of additionality, because when I occupied my previous office I discussed it at great length. I assure the hon. Lady that the amounts that are set aside for regional aid in this country take no account, when put aside, of what may be

derived from funds in Europe, which are additional funds. The way in which they are disbursed is a matter for discussion, but they are always additional to the sums put into the Estimates.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 7TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.

Second Reading of the Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill.

Motion on EEC Document R/1435/68 on Taxation Systems for Commercial Vehicles.

TUESDAY 8TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill.

Motions on the Lotteries Regulations.

WEDNESDAY 9TH FEBRUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]: until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the Child Benefit Scheme, and afterwards on the issue of 715 certfiicates for self-employed. Both will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Proceedings on the Rent (Agriculture) Amendment Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 10TH FEBRUARY—Further proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill.

FRIDAY 11TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 14TH FEBRUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced later.

It may help the House if I explain a little further what the Government have in mind for the further proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill, which I have announced for next Thursday. There have been widespread requests that the Government should, as early as possible, make known their proposals for the holding of referendums in Scotland and Wales and allow them to be debated at an early point in the Committee stage.

The relevant amendments to the Bill will, I hope, be tabled later today. We shall also be tabling a procedural motion which, if agreed, would allow the relevant clauses and schedules to be considered in advance of their natural order in the Bill, starting next Thursday. I have deliberately decided to put next week's instalment of the Committee stage back to Thursday to give hon. Members time to consider our referendum proposals and to table amendments, if they wish.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has just announced, with no notice, will give rise to great alarm on, and great disagreement from, this side of the House? Is he further aware that it is quite wrong to expect clauses not yet tabled on referendums to be discussed next Thursday? The clauses on the referendums are equal to a new Bill. They will need to be very carefully considered, and considered in detail.
I do not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman is less anxious than he was last week to make progress with the Bill in the usual way, but he will receive the maximum amount of opposition if he seeks to continue with his intention of trying to debate the referendum clauses next Thursday.

Mr. Foot: I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should take that attitude. If she had been in the Committee during these debates she would have seen that there have been requests from all sections of the House that we should have these clauses on the referendums tabled early, and we have been able to do so. We have had such requests not only from several of my hon. Friends but also from several hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made a request at an early date, while the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and others have urged that we should table and discuss these matters at an early stage in the Bill. I think that, on consideration, the right hon. Lady and the House will see that what we have proposed is for the convenience of the House, and I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit.

Mrs. Thatcher: I was in the Committee to hear the right hon. Gentleman's disgraceful performance this week. What he is proposing is totally unacceptable. Everyone wants to see the clauses, and everyone wants them tabled. But they should be taken in proper order when we have much more idea of what the Bill will contain by the time it comes to considering the referendum clauses.

Mr. Foot: Not only have there been requests that we should table these clauses early and discuss them early—such requests have come from all parts of the House—but we have also had requests from all parts of the House, at the beginning of our proceedings, that the Government should be prepared to alter the normal order of the Bill so that we should have these clauses brought forward for earlier discussion. I am sure that, when the right hon. Lady studies the matter, she will see that that has been the general wish, and it is in response to such requests that we are putting these provisions down.
Our proposal—and this is one of the reasons why we are not taking the Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday next week—is designed to ensure that, by tabling these clauses today, the House will have the opportunity to put down any amendments it may wish. We have, of course, postponed the discussion of the proceedings of the Committee stage to enable that to happen. I believe that, on consideration, the right hon. Lady will see that what we have done is perfectly reasonable.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a rather good idea that we shall want to consider? But why only one day's debate? Why is he slowing down his business like this? Is he finding the pace too dizzy for him? Is he aware that, to those of us who want to make progress on the Bill, to cut it back to one day next week instead of the customary two days is an appalling form of delaying tactics on his part?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so disappointed. He knows how much we seek to do our best to ease these matters for him. If anyone was made dizzy by progress, it could not have been him because he has not been here to witness it. I believe that he will see that this is a reasonable proposal. It would have been feasible


to have two days next week, but we thought that as there have been so many requests that we should discuss these major matters at an early stage, it was better to give time for the amendments to be put down. That being the case, we had to choose Thursday rather than an earlier date.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition is talking total nonsense today and that it is a thoroughly sensible plan to discuss these clauses now, because they are a most important part of the Bill?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed and that it will not injure the rights of other hon. Members with regard to the Bill. It will give the House an opportunity to discuss this matter in relation to the whole Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: May I ask the Leader of the House two questions? [Hon. MEMBERS: "One".] I suggest that Mr. Speaker should answer that. First, does the Leader of the House think that he will get away with one day's debate on these clauses? If not, can he make that plain? Secondly, has he had a chance yet to ask the Attorney-General whether he has sorted out the little problem of the Laker Skytrain appeal? When are we likely to hear whether the Government have decided to go to the House of Lords?

Mr. Foot: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I do not think it would be reasonable for the Government to suppose that we could get through the whole of the discussions on the new clause and schedule on the referendums in one day. Probably the occasion when we would continue to discuss them is the Monday of the week following. Obviously there has to be proper time for the discussion of such matters.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I have nothing to add. But, as the House and the country will have seen, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is perfectly capable of looking after himself.

Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend give the House some specific details?

Will there be two, three or four clauses, and how many schedules will there be on this question of the referendums? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of our needing one or two days? We shall probably need many more days to exhaust a proper discussion of the referendums.

Mr. Foot: Exhaustion is not my aim, whatever the aim of my hon. Friend may be. We have a new clause, a schedule and an appendix under these proposals. I agree that there has to be proper time. When right hon. and hon. Members see the new clause, I think they will come to the conclusion that we shall be able to deal with the matter in the time that I have suggested.

Mr. Adley: Does the Leader of the House recall that three weeks ago I asked him whether the Secretary of State for Social Services would make a statement on the problems of whooping-cough vaccination and children who had suffered brain damage therefrom? On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that he would bring this to the attention of his right hon. Friend, who on 18th January announced in a Written Answer to me that he was having a meeting with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and that shortly thereafter he would make a full statement to the House on vaccination. However, the Secretary of State has gone back on his promise of a full statement. This is causing grave concern to many people who consider it an affront that the Secretary of State has now said that he will merely answer an Oral Question next Tuesday, if it is reached. Will the Leader of the House take up this matter again with his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Foot: I passed on to my right hon. Friend the representations made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend hopes to say something to the House next week. I think that that is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Spriggs: Has my right hon. Friend considered Early-Day Motion No. 76, calling upon the Government to set up a Royal Commission to consider the police


pay claim and to report back to this House within six weeks?
[That this House, noting that the Police Federation claims that police officers are entitled to the £6 per week increase under the Government's incomes policy, but that the Government deny that this is possible under the policy, calls upon the Government to set up a Royal Commission to report on the facts of the matter, and to make a recommendation, the report to be in the Government's hands within six weeks.]

Mr. Foot: I have seen the motion, but I do not think that a Royal Commission is the proper way to deal with pay claims of this nature, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made a number of statements on the subject.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that the debate on unemployment in the North-West will take place after the emergency debate and that any time that we take now is really coming out of the time for that debate? I hope that the House will bear that in mind.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is not the simple and unadorned truth about the Government's desire to proceed with the referendum debate straight away that they know that they cannot carry a guillotine motion until they do? What makes them think that they can carry one after that?

Mr. Foot: The simple and unadorned truth is that the Government have responded to requests from all parts of the House. We are holding the discussions in the way that we thought would be convenient to the whole House.

Mr. Kinnock: May I remind my right hon. Friend of another unadorned truth with which he is doubtless familiar? It is that the undertaking to provide referendums prompted the attitude of many Government supporters to give a certain kind of support to the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those hon. Members welcome his announcement today and understand fully why it has been made at this time? May I also ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that the Government's amendments are to be tabled today, whether it is proposed to

ask one, two or more questions in the referendums, since obviously his answer will have a major effect on decisions about supporting the clause?

Mr. Foot: On the form of the new clause, I suggest that my hon. Friend looks and sees when the motion is put down. He and others will have an opportunity to table amendments, if they wish to do so. But it would be a fruitless attempt for the Government to suppress any discussion of the matter. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, we are responding to the general mood of the House on the subject which prevailed a few days ago.

Mr. MacCormick: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent newspaper opinion poll showed that two out of every three people in Scotland supported devolution and that for these people in Scotland it is much more important to have a timetable motion and get the Bill passed than to fiddle-faddle around with referendums?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should have learned by now that, whatever may be the views of others, I do not give a fig for opinion polls.

Mr. Skinner: May I take it that my right hon. Friend is still resisting any attempt to bring in a Bill providing for direct elections to the European Parliament?

Mr. Foot: I do not know where my hon. Friend got the idea that I was resisting this. But I do not have any fresh announcement to make upon it. The House will debate this matter on a Private Member's motion on Monday, and I dare say that my hon. Friend will make his usual important and constructive contribution to that debate.

Mr. Grylls: Why is the Leader of the House stubbornly refusing to produce the Bill for direct elections to the European Parliament? We understand that he is sitting on it. Can he produce it and ensure that it goes through as quickly as possible?

Mr. Foot: Whatever I may have been sitting on in the last few days, it is not that Bill. The Bill is not yet produced. There are problems about it which have been explained from this Dispatch Box. But there will be an opportunity on Mon-


day for a discussion of the matter. I think that that is the next best step.

Mr. Ovenden: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Prayer against the Government's proposals on import restrictions in respect of paper products, Early-Day Motion No. 74, now signed by 42 hon. Members from all parties, all of whom have important paper interests in their constituencies?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Import Duties (Quota Relief) (Paper, Paperboard and Printed Products), Order 1976, (S.I., 1976, No. 2116), dated 10th December 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be annulled.]

Why has not my right hon. Friend found time for a debate on it before the 40 days' praying time runs out next week?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that we have not been able to find time for such a debate. I will look at the matter to see what we can do about the possibilities of some discussion elsewhere. I will look into the possibility of having some discussions about it.

Mr. Marten: Has the Leader of the House seen the Early-Day Motion concerning Euro-passports?

[That this House, recognising the importance to most United Kingdom citizens of the existing British passport, believes that the Government should not agree to the proposal for a compulsory European passport until there has been a full debate.]

To have mauve plastic passports stamped "EEC" forced upon people who want passports will be deeply offensive to many millions of people in this country. May we have an assurance that, before any decision is taken about this, it will be debated in this House? That must be so, surely.

Mr. Foot: Of course, this is a matter which the House will wish to debate.

Mr. Ashley: May I revert to the question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) about vaccine-damaged children? I have been pressing the Government for about three years to arrange compensation for children who are appallingly

damaged. I have also asked for a specific inquiry into the problems of these children. As the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington said just now, successive announcements have been deferred. What is even more serious now, however, is that there are Press reports, perhaps leaked from the Department, that the Secretary of State intends to turn down this further request for a compensation scheme. Will my right hon. Friend agree to arrange a special debate on the problems of vaccine-damaged children in view of the public anxiety that has been aroused?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate. I do not think that it would be right to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend will make next week. When he has made that statement no doubt we can have consultations about further opportunities for the House to express an opinion.

Mr. Cormack: Can the Lord President give the House a categorical assurance that he has no present intention of introducing a guillotine motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill?

Mr. Foot: That is the kind of foolish question that does not deserve any answer at all.

Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Early-Day Motion No. 147, which is supported by nearly 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, on the complete impracticability of direct elections by 1978?
[That this House notes the statement of the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on Direct Elections to the European Assembly in 1978; notes that such matters as size of electorates, methods of election, administrative arrangements and number of seats for the various areas of the United Kingdom have still to be discussed in Parliament; further believes that whatever the basic view on the desirability of Direct Elections that wide and careful debate on such fundamental issues is necessary; and that, therefore, it is impracticable to hold such elections in 1978 and will oppose any attempts to rush such matters through the House's procedures or to guillotine debate.]
Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the report of the Select Committee, made up of a majority of zealots in this matter,


which said that it was impossible to achieve that date?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman relate his question to business for next week?

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend put the House out of its misery by stating now that it is not possible to achieve that date?

Mr. Foot: As well as my hon. Friend and others who have signed the motion, there are a large number of hon. Members who have put their names to it because it is a matter which deserves the fullest consideration and debate.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while all hon. Members wish to see the terms of the new clauses with regard to a referendum, at no time did I or any of my hon. Friends suggest that this should be discussed, as the Lord President has proposed, by a gerrymandering of parliamentary procedure in an inexcusable way?

Mr. Foot: I would invite the right hon. Lady to consider the remarks that she herself contributed to the debate on this subject which, in my opinion, urged the Government to give the House an early opportunity to discuss the matter. It was the right hon. Lady's speech, along with several others, that we took into account when we came to this conclusion.

Mr. Flannery: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that according to the media a great debate on education is in progress? Would he allow this House to take part in that great debate by devoting one, two, or three days to education?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend puts the case very winningly but, unfortunately, devolution or no devolution, I do not have one, two, or three days easily at my disposal. I shall consider at some appropriate time whether we shall have a debate. If there is such a burning demand, the Opposition have plenty of time at their disposal and might select this subject if they wish.

Mr. Pym: While the House is grateful that the new clauses are now to be tabled, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that very few hon. Members asked for any discussion to take place upon them

out of time? Would it not be wiser to complete the Committee stage on the clauses before it is reasonable or sensible to consider what the referendum ought to contain? By announcing business in the way that he has, is not the right hon. Gentleman admitting that he cannot make any further sensible progress on the Bill unless and until the House has discussed the referendum new clauses? There can be no other reason for not making progress with the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I genuinely thought that I was taking account of the representations that we have had from all quarters of the House. If any hon. Member questions that, he might perhaps look up what I said in reply to many of those requests. I indicated at an earlier stage that we should be prepared to put down a procedural motion that would make this possible.
I perfectly understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have different views and judgments about the timing of such debates. But I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I had indicated that we were likely to take this course in order to enable the debate to take place at a reasonably early stage. I do not think it will interfere with, disrupt or distort any other discussions that may take place on the Bill. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that the matter be discussed at an early stage.

Mr. Michael Morris: Can the Lord President say whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement on the future of the new towns, in view of the reports that we shall ditch the third generation of new towns?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has made speeches, not in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but on the future of the inner cities and these matters. I am sure that at the proper time my right hon. Friend will engage in a debate in this House. But if he were to make a statement, he would not choose the terms and language of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sims: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two and a half years ago the Advisory Council on the Penal System produced a report on young offenders? This week the Home Secretary, by way of


Written Answer, has indicated his rather disappointing reactions to some of those proposals. Will the Lord President now honour the undertaking, which he gave to me in the last Session and which his predecessor gave to me in the previous Session, that this House will have the opportunity to debate this important report?

Mr. Foot: I shall look at the matter and see what we can propose.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Lord President has not been able to give an assurance about a statement next Tuesday and, therefore, we have to rely on the hope that the Question in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is reached. We have to rely on just how much time you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, will allocate to supplementary questions. It is wholly unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State is going back on his word. I would ask you to use your good offices to see whether the answer to that Question can come at 3.30 p.m. at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I should be embarking on dangerous ground if I started suggesting that Ministers should answer Questions at the end of Question Time. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman's point will have been duly noted by the Lord President and others.

BILL PRESENTED

WHOOPING-COUGH (VACCINATION)

Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. David Price, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. David Hunt, and Mr. Jack Ashley, presented a Bill to make provisions for the recovery of damages incurred as a result of vaccination against whooping-cough; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the Business of Supply may be anticipated by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.—[Mr. Tinn.)

RHODESIA (SCHOOLCHILDREN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Leave having been given on Wednesday 2nd February under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make immediate representations to the Government of Botswana for the return of four hundred schoolchildren abducted on Monday from South-West Rhodesia.

Mr. Julian Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you have ruled that the debate on which we are about to embark is a matter of urgent public importance, and when the House has supported your decision—as it did yesterday—is it not the grossest discourtesy to the House and to the Chair that the Foreign Secretary should not be present to deal with this great debate? Can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will appear later?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say who comes to speak for the Department, but I have no doubt at all that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted. What I am concerned about is that every Administration is answerable to this House, but who is chosen to answer is not a matter for me.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On Sunday evening last, a small band of armed guerrillas came to the Manama Mission School of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Mission and at gunpoint rounded up 384 children, five teachers and two priests. In order to show the parity of their motives, the guerrillas broke open the mission safe and stole £1,300 and marched the children, teachers and priests off towards the Botswana border.
Four children and one priest escaped fairly quickly from their captors, possibly on the long journey to the frontier. Ten more children and two teachers have since escaped and returned. About 370 children remain somewhere in Botswana. All these children are minors and should be in the custody of their parents. Appeals


have been made to the Botswana Government and to the International Red Cross, so far without result.
The Botswana Government are reported to have said that the children had fled to Botswana to escape death at the hands of the Smith forces, who, the spokesman said, shot innocent people to maintain a killing quota of 10 guerrillas to one Rhodesian soldier. That seems to be the "contradictory" account from Sir Seretse Khama's Government which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary referred to yesterday and which was his excuse for inaction. I suggested yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in my submission to you, that even if that remarkable explanation were believed—I wonder whether anyone does believe it—it quite ignored the fact that these were children and that they have parents.
But how much plausibility is there in the Botswana story? Here is the relevant part of the report in The Times on Tuesday from its own correspondent:
The pupils had been rounded up from their dormitories where they had been before"—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Was the correspondent named actually there at the happening?

Mr. Bell: If the hon. Member will listen, he will see where the correspondent got his information from:
The pupils had been rounded up from their dormitories, where they had been before attending the mission's evening prayer service.
A boy aged 16, one of those who escaped, said, 'They made us line up outside the school, then told us to run. They made us run out of the gate and down the road. After a while, we began walking and twice they made us lie down and hide when planes came over. They said they would shoot us if we didn't do what they said. We crossed the Shashe River into Botswana and there they let us have a rest. We all lay down and when they called out for us to get up. I lay hidden and watched my friends going away. My sister was among them.'
So they went away into Botswana, and, unless someone does something about it, they will not be seen in their homes for a long time, and perhaps never.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Referring to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House

whether his informant, who presumably is The Times correspondent, was there? Did he interview the boy? If he did not, who told him? Who was his informant?

Mr. Bell: I think that the correspondent of The Times did interview him—

Mr. Litterick: The boy does not say so.

Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will find that the accumulation of evidence is quite devastating. He need not bother about these fiddling little points.
Everyone but the Foreign Secretary knows what this is all about. He seems not to know. He said to me yesterday:
There have, of course, been innumerable incursions on the part of Rhodesians into Botswana territory in recent months. These border incidents will occur, whether we like it or not, in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 532.]
So this was one of those border incidents which
will occur, whether we like it or not".
I am almost tempted to stop and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he likes this one or not. The right hon. Gentleman said that such incidents occur in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals. So, of course, it is Mr. Smith's fault.
My censure of the Foreign Secretary in this debate is on two separate grounds, on the first of which I think that most hon. Members on either side will stand with me. I have little doubt that it is upon this consideration that three Labour Members were good enough to rise in my support yesterday. I can at least discern a difference between the mass abduction of children and some of the other border incidents which occur.
It was, I think, Litvinov who once said that peace was indivisible. So also are good and evil. What person of normally decent instincts is not repelled and even sated with horror at some of the things being done in the name of politics in many parts of the world? There was the terrible massacre recently in another part of Rhodesia as a result of one of these raids over the border, in which all the men of a village were killed. They were forced by armed guerrillas to lie side by side on the ground, and their wives and children were made to sit a few


feet away and watch the men being machine-gunned to death as they lay there. I am not aware of anyone having recorded any official protest or made any official expression of horror at that episode.
In another quite different part of the world, hon. Members will have read on Tuesday, in one of these political raids over the frontier, villagers were massacred and the children all had their throats cut and were described as lying around like rag dolls with clusters of flies under their chins.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the hon. and learned Gentleman can discern with absolute clarity matters of good and evil, which he has described as indivisible, would he address his mind to the raids by Rhodesian forces into Mozambique and the attacks on camps there? Could he fit them into his classification of good and evil?

Mr. Bell: I had little doubt that the hon. Member's intervention would not at all be upon the point that I had just made.

Sir Bernard Braine: They have sunk pretty low; let them intervene.

Mr. Bell: Those last two episodes were, of course, much more savage examples of inhumanity than that which we are discussing today, but they fall into the same evil category of inhumanity perpetrated in the name of politics. Such happenings should be condemned wherever they occur without benefit of partisanship, and, when they occur on territory with which we are closely connected and in respect of which we have at least some element of responsibility, a supine impartiality on the part of the Secretary of State deserves the most forthright condemnation.
I turn to the second and more controversial ground of my attack on the Secretary of State. He should learn, if he does not know—he should know—that this episode and nothing to do with Mr. Smith's rejection of Mr. Ivor Richard's terms. Have his departmental advisers really given him that advice, or was that phrase of his yesterday just another of the Foreign Secretary's detached, off-the-cuff observations on world affairs?
Abduction across the Botswana border by Nkomo's men has been going on for

several months, since long before Mr. Richard's proposals were formulated, long before the Geneva Conference broke down. It is not particularly directed at Mr. Smith, although his name may occasionally be mentioned as an excuse for something. Does not the Foreign Secretary even read the newspapers?
Has the right hon. Gentleman read, for example, the report from Gwanda on 20th January, some considerable time before this happened, by Richard Cecil, another correspondent of The Times, describing the massive campaign? It is headed,
Nkomo men launch mass kidnapping drive to build up terrorist army.
It describes this massive campaign of gunpoint recruiting and abduction from Botswana for a Nkomo Matabele army. In the last two and a half months 1,500 Africans have been scooped up in armed raids into the Matabeleland area of South-West Rhodesia, in which the episode that we are discussing occured. The only special element of this last raid is that the victims were children.
What Mr. Cecil said was:
In one recent incident, 124 Africans were abducted from a beer hall and marched at gunpoint into Botswana. Eighteen of them managed to escape.
He talked to some of them, and they described
how armed terrorists came to their kraal and recruited or abducted young men in Mr. Nkomo's name. One was told: 'Come and be one of Mr. Nkomo's soldiers so he has an army after independence' "—
after independence.
We want no people from ZANU … only people who will fight for Nkomo.
The correspondent says that wholesale abduction at gunpoint is now more common than gentle persuasion and promises of a university education in Russia. He also says:
Generally the guerrillas wait until a large group of villagers gather for a social or administrative event. Then they pounce and set off at speed for the border with their captives. … Once across the border of Botswana, the terrorists brief the villagers: They are to become soldiers in Mr. Nkomo's army, and one day they will come back, 'some on foot and some in airplanes.' They must tell the Botswana authorities that they came willingly, 'otherwise we will know that you belong to Smith and you will be shot'.
That was in The Times nearly a fortnight before this episode. It describes


events that have been going on during the preceding three or four months. Was the Foreign Secretary unaware of all this? If he was aware of it, how could he speak yesterday in those bland terms of two contradictory versions, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and one, of course, from the Rhodesian Government, as though the two were equally worthy of belief? [Interruption.] I suppose hon. Members will be saying soon that it was a legal raid.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has been quoting Press cuttings. He will presumably have seen the Press reports in The Times and The Guardian today, which he has not yet got round to quoting, which state that the Botswana Government, which is a legal Government headed by Sir Seretse Khama, who is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House as being a great African leader, have accepted a Rhodesian request that the International Red Cross should investigate the alleged abduction of children from a Rhodesian mission school. One report goes on to say:
Mr. Philip Steenkamp, permanent secretary to President Seretse Khama of Botswana said today that both the Red Cross and the press would be welcome to talk to the children who were today moved from villages near the Rhodesian border to Francistown in the northeast of the country.
In a further statement, which I shall briefly go on to mention—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only a three-hour debate. We cannot have quotations that are too long.

Mr. Bell: In the interests of everyone else, the hon. Gentleman should make his own speech when the time comes. I am happy to make mine and to give way on particular points but not to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his speech in the middle of mine. However, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next thing that I was about to say, so I shall now say it and comfort him.
The underlying reasons for all this are obvious and ought to be well known in the Foreign Office. Indeed, I suspect that they are well known to everyone except the Foreign Secretary, who is probably not in very close touch with world affairs.

Mr. Peter Rost: It did not happen in Grimsby.

Mr. Bell: It did not happen in Grimsby.
Majority rule should mean, in practice, Mashona control, because they are the majority, and Bishop Muzorewa enjoys undoubted majority support. But the Mashona are a moderate people, willing to live and work happily with the Europeans and to reach agreement with them. Their leaders, too, are moderate. So they are useless to the Russians. The Russian Ambassador in Zambia, who now weaves the web, has forced the conjunction of Nkomo and Mugabe and has secured the endorsement of them by the African Presidents. Thus the majority Mashone are shut out. Nkomo and Mugabe reckon that after independence on their terms—not those now proposed, the British proposals, or anything like them—the Mashona will rise against them. They therefore want to build up their guerrilla forces first—hence the raids.
That is what it is all about. It is about nothing else. It has nothing to do with Mr. Richard's proposals, which have only just come along. Also, Nkomo and Mugabe are a little less fond of each other than were David and Johnathan, and Nkomo has had his succession as heir apparent virtually snatched from him by Mugabe, so he, Nkomo, is building up his private army in Botswanaland with the connivance of that respected African statesman Sir Seretse Khama, who is basically a Matabele himself, though, like Nkomo, not of the pure Matabele tribe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."]—it is no good saying "disgraceful"; it is absolutely true—and of Nkomo's friend Kamada and of the Russian-dominated Tanzania.
The purpose is the building of an army for use after independence—not against Mr. Smith. Those 370 children are in the pipeline to Francistown. [Interruption.] My information is that the captured Africans are taken over the border into Botswana. They are then taken to Francistown and flown from Francistown to Zambia, where they stop, and then from Zambia to Tanzania, where they are trained and indoctrinated, and a few specially selected ones go to Russia.
The interruption bears it out that these children, who a few days ago were in their village and who have only just crossed the border, are already in Francistown on that familiar route. They are in the pipeline—then by air to Zambia and on to Tanzania. That is why I say that their parents have lost them, unless the Foreign Secretary wakes up and exercises the pressure that he can exercise on Sir Seretse Khama, who knows perfectly well what game is being played on his territory and has been played there for anything up to the last six months.
Is it seriously suggested that Sir Seretse Khama does not know that from his relatively small territory raids are going out into South-West Rhodesia to capture hundreds of Matabele at a time, bring them into his country, take them up to Francistown and load them into aircraft leaving Francistown for Lusaka? Is it seriously suggested that Sir Seretse Khama knows nothing about that? It is absolutely beyond belief.
Am I then asked to believe that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs does not know about this, has not known about this for several months past and is in total ignorance of it? I know that he has a rather disdainful attitude to the details of these tiresome events, but, even so, some broad perception of their nature must have percolated through to him. If that is so, what was he playing at when he gave me that answer yesterday? He said that there had been two conflicting reports and that until he found out which was right he did not propose to make any representations to anyone. Was he surprised to read this morning that these children are already at Francistown ready for the airlift?
I note that the Secretary of State is not taking part in this debate. I do not know why he has put up the Minister of State to speak. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us what the Government intend to do in order to ensure that these children are not flown to Zambia. We do not want any mollifying phrases. It is time that the Government showed at least one African President that they have a little red blood in their veins, which they have never shown to any African president in the past.
There have been persistent references to incursions from Rhodesia across the Botswana border. These have been going on for months. Of course the Rhodesians have tried to rescue some of the abducted people, and have at times succeeded. They have also made some pre-empted strikes on terrorist camps because they knew that abductions were being prepared. Is there not a material distinction between an attack on a terrorist camp to stop an abduction or to rescue abducted people and a raid from Botswana, which actually occurred on Sunday, to snatch 384 schoolchildren away from their parents and send them on to a form of terrorist exile? These are questions to which we want answers today.
As far as I am concerned, unless I get a direct and reassuring answer to this question I would hope that we will divide the House. This will indicate to the Government in general, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, our view of the total unreality of the whole Government attitude to the controversy in Rhodesia now. The Foreign Secretary does not seem to realise what is happening.
There are two stages to this question. A good many people disagree with me about the first stage—the issue of the practicality of majority rule in Rhodesia. I took one view but many people took another. But everyone must realise that that stage has gone, because the principle of majority rule was insisted upon and conceded. We are now in the second stage, which is quite separate—that is, the technicalities of that process, the shape it will take and who is to exploit it and make use of it and for what purpose. That is the second stage of the game.
I do not think that the Foreign Secretary, with his preoccupation about the white minority régime, has recognised that he is totally naive about this second stage. He does not realise that he is surrounded by ruthless and highly-skilled manipulators who, having seized on the Kissinger acceptance of the fact of majority rule, are now manoeuvring for position in a most complicated pattern, with a degree of dedication and ruthlessness which is quite strange to democratic Governments. Unless the Foreign Secretary drops his attitude of detached ignorance and plays chess with


these people, we shall have a blood bath in Rhodesia. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is chess with machine guns".] It will not be just the abduction of children or the building up of Nkomo's army by raids on British territory, but after independence the whole thing will turn into a bloody battle in which the main sufferers will be the Africans—the Matabele and the Mashona.
I level this reproach against the Foreign Secretary, and I would much rather that he answered it himself than put up someone else—a spokesman—to do it for him. I hope that we get a satisfactory answer to these questions.

4.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I believe that it might be helpful for me to intervene at this stage to give the House an outline of the position as we know it and of the action the Government have taken. I resist the temptation to follow the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in his series of personal gibes and comments. I shall concentrate on the immediate issue at stake.
We all agree that this emergency debate is not just about the situation in Southern Africa but is about the children themselves. The House will join me in deploring the involvement of schoolchildren in the present Rhodesia conflict. I shall tell the House what we have done to help and will give a brief summary of the position.
According to Press reports, the Rhodesian authorities claim that a small group of guerrillas entered Rhodesia from Botswana and at gunpoint forced 400 children of the Manama Mission secondary school to return with them for purposes of guerrilla training. On the other hand, the Botswana Government in an authoritative statement said that of the large number of students involved, some of whom they had interviewed, not one supported the allegations of the Rhodesian authorities that they had been abducted by armed guerrillas.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from certain sources. Other reports indicate that there is an alternative explanation. That explanation is that, following repeated visits to the

school by the Rhodesian security forces, it was the decision of the children themselves to leave. The Botswana Government claim that the children decided to leave because the Rhodesian security forces kept visiting them, and the British Government are not in a position to determine the true position. The only thing that could be said to be certain about the whole incident is that a large group of children has crossed the border from Rhodesia to Botswana.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the Minister explain why 18 of the children escaped from liberation? Is he suggesting also that five teachers and two priests were on the march of freedom?

Mr. Rowlands: All I am telling the House is that there are conflicting reports and that we are not in an authoritative position to decide what is true. All we do know is that the children have left Rhodesia. Their welfare must be of immediate concern to us. Why this has happened must be established, and we need to know the truth.
I shall report to the House on the action we have taken. The moment we heard of the incident, our High Commissioner in Botswana discussed the matter with the Botswana Government. She was informed that urgent inquiries were being made, but as the border area was affected by local flooding it was difficult to ascertain the facts.
Last evening we received a further report from our High Commissioner in Botswana saying that she had been informed by the authorities that the main body of children, numbering 380, were at Kobojango but that they were to be transferred to Seleb-Pikwe and Francis-town, where there were better facilities for their welfare. The Botswana authorities told our High Commissioner that of the large number of children who were interviewed all had agreed that they had left Rhodesia willingly to escape harassment by the Rhodesia security forces. [Interruption.] I am not arguing as to what is the truth. I am saying simply that we have had these reports from the Botswana authorities.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot give way. I must develop my speech.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the Minister give way on an important point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to know what action the Government have taken to secure the welfare of the children. Surely that is the most important matter of concern.
Because of our concern for the welfare of these children, I have instructed our High Commissioner in Gaberones to make immediate representations to the Botswana authorities urging that these children should not be moved outside Botswana until the full facts have been established by an independent body—

Mr. Rees-Davies: That will be too late.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to refrain from interrupting in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Rowlands: We have instructed our High Commissioner in the manner I have described. The Botswana Government have said that they would welcome intervention by the International Red Cross. I believe that that would be extremely helpful, and I accordingly asked our mission in Geneva earlier today to speak to the Red Cross. I learned later that the Red Cross is sending a representative to Gaberones tomorrow, and I have asked our High Commissioner there to remain in close touch with the Red Cross. I have asked that a member of the High Commission staff should visit the children with the Red Cross representative.
I hope hon. Members will agree that this is both helpful and immediate and that this is the action that is required to help on this first and most immediate problem concerning the welfare of the children.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the Minister now give way? The most important point that he has not yet dealt with concerns what has happened with regard to the children's parents. Have they been contacted? What is their view about their children being seized? Has not the hon. Gentleman recognised that this is virtually a

white slave trade? Is he aware that it is therefore reportable to the United Nations, since the abduction of these children without the consent of their parents is contrary to the laws of the United Nations?

Mr. Rowlands: Emotive terms such as "white slave trade" can scarcely help in relieving the situation we now face concerning the welfare of the children. I have outlined the action that we have taken with the Botswana Government, in connection with the Red Cross and in terms of ensuring that a member of the High Commission staff visits the children with the Red Cross official. If hon. Members were not trying to develop some wider political argument, they would accept that this was a reasonably constructive approach and a practical way of dealing with the immediate problem concerning the welfare of the children.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister has not touched on one important point which is fundamental to a proper and fair consideration of the whole matter. Do the Government accept or not a responsibility for all people living in Rhodesia? Are these black Africans—parents and children—British subjects for whom, in the last analysis, Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility? If that be so, ought not the Government to be acting on behalf of the parents as well as the children?

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have no representation in Rhodesia. We have no consular facilities there. He must acknowledge all the practical help and assistance that we have been trying to give through the mission that we have in Botswana. Since we are not represented in Rhodesia, we have no means of checking the views of the parents or of talking to them.
I hope hon. Members will agree that the most immediate and specific matter of concern must be the welfare of the children. I have given an account of the action we have tried to take.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Not many people in this House would doubt that the children are probably alive, but surely the Minister should recognise the validity of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)


about the parents. If the children are minors, as it would seem, they have been abducted. Cannot the Government be unequivocal in their condemnation of this action and say quite properly that the place of the children is with their parents?

Mr. Rowlands: There are two conflicting reports about what happened—[Interruption.] There is no way, until we get an authoritative version, of knowing what happened, and, therefore, the Government cannot take a definitive view.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Those of us who know the British High Commissioner in Gaberones have confidence in our staff there. Does the Minister agree that it is very important that the right questions are asked of these children? Secondly, it is important that we should have an undertaking that a member of the High Commission is there when the children are questioned. Thirdly, it is important that the person who goes has a full knowledge of the various languages and dialects spoken. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless these factors are satisfactorily guaranteed much of the questioning might be useless?

Mr. Rowlands: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's points. However, we have been trying to make these arrangements for only 24 hours. We are awaiting a response from the Botswana authorities. I cannot give a straightforward guarantee that a multilingual representative of our High Commission will be associated with the Red Cross representative, but within our power, and within the practical effort we can make, everything that it is possible to do will be done. I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise our approach as being reasonable and civilised. I wish that some hon. Members, instead of trying to score points, would accept that we are doing our best for the welfare of the children.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There should not be points of order on this. If the Minister does not desire to give way, he should not be pressed.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the Minister had given way. He was looking directly at me when he gave way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appears that the Minister was not giving way.

Mr. Rowlands: I have given way consistently and regularly, and I have done my best to explain more than adequately the efforts that we are endeavouring to make to help with the welfare of the children. I wish that hon. Members would concentrate on that issue. I do not believe that I can say more now or that the Government could do more than we are already doing.
Nevertheless, if after the full facts have been established it appears that there is a need to make further urgent representations to Botswana, the Government will not hesitate to do that. In view of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield yesterday and today, I want to point out that Sir Seretse Khama is one of our oldest and most established friends in Africa. He is a compassionate and peace-loving man, and I am sure that he wishes to do everything possible to satisfy world opinion that the welfare of these children has been properly safeguarded.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I wonder whether the Minister of State either heard or read the Secretary of State's response to the question that was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) yesterday. In response to that question—which gave rise to this debate—the Foreign Secretary said:
I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 532.]
The Foreign Secretary was talking about the contrasting statements.
I wonder that the Minister of State can now come to the Dispatch Box with a long story about action taken by he Government which has clearly resulted from the Government's anxiety about the granting of the emergency debate. What fills most people with deep anxiety and great anger is the feeling that the Foreign Secretary—whose current absence I undertand, because he is away doing something


that he cannot avoid doing, but I shall return to that matter later—has dealt with the matter with the serene Olympian detachment that characterises his whole approach and with apparent indifference to the issues involved. If one of the children were his, what would he be thinking? How could he then possibly say in response to the questioning of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that he had no intention of doing anything at all?

Mr. Ioan Evans: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has taken a selective quotation. If he read the preceding paragraph, he would see that the Foreign Secretary said that the Government had received two totally contradictory accounts of the matter, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and one from Rhodesia. The Foreign Secretary was not prepared to prejudge the matter. He wanted to find out what the situation was.

Mr. Davies: I felt sure that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) would make a totally irrelevant comment, and he did so. I said that the Foreign Secretary meant what he said more in relation to what he regarded as a dubiety about the question.
It is intolerable that the Foreign Secretary should have to be provoked into taking even the action that he has now taken. He has not even given the assurance for which my hon. Friends asked about the representations that have been made. It was only after the strength of opinion had been shown that anything was done. It should not have required our intervention to secure this action. This is characteristic of the Foreign Secretary's treatment of matters relating to the problems of Southern Africa. It is not surprising that we are distressed and disturbed each time the Foreign Secretary deals with such matters.
On that count alone, I am inclined to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me this evening in marking our total disapprobation of the way that this and other matters are being handled, particularly in such a tense situation.
It is not my intention to use this occasion for a wide-ranging discussion on Southern African problems, and no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not allow it if I tried. This is not in any sense a

substitute for a proper debate on Southern African affairs. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has for a long time been asking for a major full-day debate on foreign affairs with particular reference to Rhodesia and Southern Africa. I reiterate the need for that. This emergency debate has no bearing on that matter.
I want to refer again to the Minister of State's inability to answer the question of why the British Government do not consider themselves entitled to take more forthright action. The Government have taken standard diplomatic action of the kind that it is open for any country to take in the circumstances. But we are not any other country. We are a country with an absolutely fundamental and leading interest in the problem. After much hesitation and tardiness, causing goodness knows what damage, the Foreign Secretary has ultimately brought himself to accede to the belief that there will have to be British involvement in an interim phase in Rhodesia—if that is ever procured. Surely that justifies our doing something different from the standard action that could have been taken by any Power or any humanitarian people concerned with the frightening consideration of children disappearing, for whatever reason, out of their place of education.
It is totally unconvincing to hear that the Government consider that it is even a sustainable alternative that the decision to leave was taken by the children themselves. Surely, children in any country or circumstances have some regard for their parents and take some account of them. Four hundred children would not simply light-out without considering their parents. That is irrational and unbelievable.
I join the Minister of State in believing that Sir Seretse Khama took no rôle in this. I do not believe that he was in any way involved in such a discreditable business or that it was even his general wish. We all know of the difficult circumstances in which he now lives. Having said that, however, that is no reason why we should seek to evade in any way our responsibility to pursue the matter much more vigorously than hitherto. Nothing was done until the question was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. It was only then—

Mr. Rost: Can my right hon. Friend extract from the Minister the information that he has refused to give to me? Was the inquiry initiated after the incident took place on Sunday or after the announcement that there would be an emergency debate?

Mr. Davies: The Foreign Secretary is now here. It would be interesting if the Government would respond and say at what stage they decided to take the action that has been outlined by the Minister of State. I wonder whether the Minister of State or the Foreign Secretary would care to answer.

Mr. Rowlands: I have told the House that as soon as the incident became known our High Commissioner approached the Botswanan authorities to find out the score and followed up with further representations when it became clear where the children were. We conducted the normal diplomatic approaches. What extra action does the right hon. Gentleman suggest we should have taken?

Mr. Davies: Why does not the Minister of State go there now? It would be a welcome departure from the normal arrangement under which someone is given incomplete authority to conduct negotiations in that part of the world. How can the Minister reconcile his remarks with what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday? I remind the Minister that his right hon. Friend said:
I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 532.]
It is inconceivable that the remarks of both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State are exact: they are incompatible.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that he is dissatisfied with the Government's standard approach. He has been challenged more than once to say what should have been done. Is his sole contribution to suggest that the Minister of State should go to Botswana?

Mr. Davies: That would certainly be determined action—which is not what we have seen hitherto.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: When my right hon. Friend is

asked what further should be done, will he suggest that our High Commissioner should not be content merely with interviewing the authorities in Botswana but should seek an audience with the children themselves and the adults accompanying them and interrogate the parents? The Red Cross performs an invaluable function in the relief of distress, but it is not an interrogative body and other processes are required to establish the truth.

Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There are many lines of determined action which could have been taken earlier but which were taken only when they were provoked.
I find the Minister of State's remarks characteristic of the many occasions when the Government ask what the Opposition would do in certain circumstances. The Government are responsible in these matters; they have the command of the diplomatic services and the boundless numbers of advisers to give them guidance on what should be done. It is ridiculous that the Government should cravenly shelter behind trying to find an alternative recipe from us.

Mr. Litterick: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he would do.

Mr. Davies: We have made suggestions. If the hon. Gentleman does not take the trouble to listen, that is too bad.

Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend will remember that when the unfortunate Mr. Hills was in trouble in Uganda the Prime Minister himself went there to intercede on his behalf.

Mr. Davies: I remember that occasion clearly. It is in sharp contrast to anything that is considered appropriate in this case.
The issues with which we are concerned are of deep importance from the humanitarian point of view and have evoked an inadequate and frigid response from the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers. On that ground alone, if on no other, it would be right for us to divide the House at the end of this debate to signify how deeply we feel about the indifference being shown to the issues involved here.
Unfortunately, the matter goes much further. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield who is honourably responsible for bringing this matter before the House, has listed a series of incidents and there can be no doubt about their proliferation and the terrible likelihood that they are bound to increase and increasingly bring about a state of utter chaos with terrible damage in the areas concerned.
I ask the Foreign Secretary to have regard to the United Nations Charter. Hon. Members would do well to remember that we and practically every other country are signatories to that document, which says:
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
I am deeply concerned that there seems to be a progressive development of accepting the escalation of acts of violence and aggression in Southern Africa with a view to a settlement. This attitude seems to have gained so much ground that the principles underlying the United Nations Charter are being undermined not only by countries in that part of the world and elsewhere but by us in our failure to realise that every time we accept as normal that such events should take place we accept an apparent transgression of the most solemn document of its kind to which we have lent our name.
These issues raise matters of profound importance and have been totally inadequately met by the Government. The issues which may flow from what has happened are almost limitless in their horror and danger.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I have been to Botswana within the last two months with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, which met most members of the Cabinet there and visited the border with Rhodesia, where we saw refugees, both black and white, who had left Rhodesia and were heading towards the ferry to cross the Zambesi.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) talked glibly about the United Nations Charter, but Rhodesia is not a signatory to that Charter. Rhodesia

decided to set up a rebel Government and take a unilateral decision—

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Pathological.

Mr. Orbach: What does the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) mean by that remark?

Mr. Goodhew: The Labour Party is pathological about Rhodesia. That is why Labour Members do not understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has been saying to them.

Mr. Orbach: "Pathological" is a strong word, and as an ex-Chairman of the Tavistock Clinic and Vice-Chairman of Maudsley Hospital, I think I know a little more about mental pathology than does the hon. Member for St. Albans. I am accusing him not of being pathological—just of being stupid.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not a fact that we are talking about an illegal régime that has been universally condemned in the United Nations and is recognised only by members of the Tory Party and the Vorster régime?

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is about the fate of a large number of children—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. These are matters for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Orbach: I was not going to take up the time of the Chamber for very long, because a number of hon. Members, particularly on the Government side, want to take part.
The Government of Gaberones are a responsible Government and will be responsive to the representations made by the Foreign Office. I have a high regard for the British High Commissioner there and I am certain that he will not send one of his staff—[HON. MEMERS: "She."] I think I can be forgiven for that, because I have been to two places, Botswana and Lesotho, and, for a moment, I made a mistake. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) wish to speak?

Sir Bernard Braine: Indigestion.

Mr. Orbach: I want to make a serious suggestion in the same spirit as those already made. I suggest that we carry out a raid on Botswana, bring the children home to Beaconsfield and ask the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) if he will welcome them there. He represents a constituency that is named after a great anti-racialist. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, too, is an anti-racialist. I am certain that he would be happy to see these 400 children brought to Beaconsfield.
However, the fact is that no one here is aware of what has taken place. We are waiting for information. When we get the appropriate information I am sure that the Government will act against both the illegal régime in Rhodesia and the legal régime in Gaberones in the proper manner.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I agree with the Minister of State on one point, and that is respect for Sir Seretse Khama. My only fear is whether he has control over what goes on inside his own territory. On any account or on any explanation so far given, it is a very bad business. If it is true—and the evidence appears to point that way—that 400 schoolchildren were abducted by armed guerrillas, that is an act of consummate evil which should be condemned by all concerned.
I find it hard to believe that all these children were thirsting to leave their own homes and go across the border, and were given that opportunity by the arrival of armed guerrilla forces. Even if that explanation is true, I do not think it is credible. They are children. What about their parents? That, surely, is the point. Even if these guerrillas liberated the children from the thraldom that they were suffering in Rhodesia, their parents should be able to have their wishes and desires.
I am glad that the Red Cross is conducting an investigation. Its prestige is enormous. But it should be recognised that the Red Cross will be talking to children who are susceptible to excitement, to emotion and to fear, and it should also get the views of the parents. There is no reason whatever why the Red Cross should not be able to do this,

because the views of teenage children in these circumstances, without the views of their parents, are not adequate.

Mr. Rowlands: I have received notice that following the various representations made the Botswana authorities are quite happy for the parents to go to Botswana, meet their children and talk about the matter. This will assist the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Maudling: How very big-hearted of them to let parents see their abducted children. It really is impossible to believe that all the children were waiting to desert their homes and their parents, and it must be proved that that is the case.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman made a perfectly legitimate point that it was necessary for the Red Cross to consult the parents of the children to ascertain their wishes, but when my hon. Friend points out that facilities are to be made available for the parents to visit the children, the right hon. Gentleman goes off the deep end and complains about it.

Mr. Maudling: I certainly do, because it is totally inadequate to say to these parents, whose children have gone many miles across the frontier, "If you like, you will be able to see your children, in a foreign country". We should be sensible. If the Red Cross is to produce a full and comprehensive picture of what happened it must see the parents at their homes. If the Red Cross asked to do that I am sure that it would be entitled to do so. That is the only way to get at the facts.
It is a bad business, for many reasons. I was shocked at some of the things that the Foreign Secretary said in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) who so rightly raised this matter. The Foreign Secretary spoke about border incidents. Is this really a border incident? Is it a border incident when 400 children leave their school, their homes and parents to go to a foreign country where they may never see their parents again? I do not think that that is the way to treat it. The Foreign Secretary also said that there have been innumerable incursions by Rhodesian troops into Botswana territory. Smith is not going to invade other countries. If he is bringing about incursions


into Botswana it is to deal with the guerrillas who are invading Rhodesia.
The Foreign Secretary, finally, said that these border incidents would occur, whether we liked it or not, in consequence of Smith's rejection of the British proposals. That reminded me of what he said 10 days ago—that there was no fundamental difference between the British proposals and the Kissinger proposals. If that is so, why is it that Smith is wrong to reject our proposals and yet the black nationalists are not wrong for turning down the Kissinger proposals out of hand? If this is to be dealt with on the basis of fairness and justice, that is a question to which we must have an answer from the Government.
What worries me most about the incident is its long-term effect. The Government have handled this whole thing the wrong way round. To start with a date for independence and with interim arrangements does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is the European population of Rhodesia, who will now certainly accept majority rule within a relatively short time—perhaps within two years—on the basis of a constitution, which may be written out without much difficulty, guaranteeing independent law courts, individual rights—

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about something quite different from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is developing his argument and the Chair will ensure that it remains within the rules of order.

Mr. Maudling: I was trying to show why I thought that this incident will have grave consequences—consequences so far underestimated by the Government—because of their influence on the long-term problem of Rhodesia. They should give confidence to the European population that a constitution for majority rule will remain and not be torn up—in other words, confidence that if there is majority rule in Rhodesia it will be on Kenyan lines and not on Ugandan lines. This is the fundamental problem in solving the Rhodesian issue. Incidents of this kind—support given by the Government to guerrilla movements and the

failure of the front-line Presidents to condemn the incident—will make the solution even more difficult.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Loan Evans: This motion condemning the Foreign Secretary's actions is completely unwarranted and unjustified. This issue was raised yesterday on a Question dealing with the Geneva Conference. I put a supplementary question to the Foreign Secretary before the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), and we were discussing the talks that were taking place. This matter could have been raised yesterday by the Opposition by way of a Private Notice Question, of which they could have given notice to the Speaker, and the matter could have been discussed in great detail. The hon. and learned Gentleman could have taken part in the discussion. He should have raised it as a point of order at the end of Question Time and made his point then.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the debate was taking place as a result not of the choice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), but of the ruling of Mr. Speaker and the choice of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Evans: There is no point at issue in that respect. I welcome the fact that we are having the debate. My point is that if there was this concern—the Opposition now seem to be unanimous that they are concerned only with this aspect of the Rhodesia situation—the point could have been raised in the House yesterday. But the Question on the Order Paper, in which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield tried to get involved, concerned the Geneva talks. The hon. and learned Gentleman's question was:
Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity which this matter offers of an approach to the Botswana Government about the kidnapping of 400 children".
The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to refer to Sir Seretse Khama's State as being under a totalitarian régime. That point has been criticised by some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State's reply was as follows:
To call Sir Seretse Khama's State a totalitarian State is hardly an accurate description of the Botswana regime.
I think that there would be general agreement on that point. Indeed, my hon. Friend has just confirmed that matter. It is important to get this on the record, because selective quotations have been made from the Foreign Secretary's answer. We should put it in its full context. My right hon. Friend continued:
We have had two totally contradictory accounts of this matter, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and the other from the Rhodesian Government. I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true.
The Minister of State said that approaches were being made to ascertain the full facts of the situation. Things were happening in the Foreign Office. Things were moving. It might be that my right hon. Friend had no brief before him because no hon. Member had indicated that he wished to raise this matter.
The Foreign Secretary went on to say:
I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true. There have, of course, been innumerable incursions on the part of the Rhodesians into Botswana territory in recent months. These border incidents will occur, whether we like it or not, in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 929, c. 532.]
That was an off-the-cuff reply by the Foreign Secretary, which showed that the Foreign Office was making inquiries and did not want to prejudge the issue.
We are discussing whether to examine the facts and consider what we can do in the best interests and welfare of these children or to accept the word of the apologists in the Smith régime, who believe that the régime can do no wrong and that the rest of the world is out of step.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: I shall give way later. The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said that we were not debating the right issue and that we should have an opportunity to debate foreign affairs —particularly Southern Africa. I have on numerous occasions during business

questions called for such a debate. I hope that there will be a demand from both sides of the House for debates on foreign affairs and on Southern Africa. It comes ill from the Opposition to say that we should have such a debate when they have Supply Days. Today is a Supply Day. They have a Supply Day next week. Whenever the Opposition want a debate on foreign affairs or on Southern Africa, they have the opportunity to do so through the usual channels.

Mr. Evelyn King: rose—

Mr. John Davies: rose—

Mr. Evans: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Davies: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for calling me his hon. Friend. Is he aware that the Leader of the House, over a period upwards of six months now, has been giving undertakings shortly to find Government time for a debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Evans: If the right hon. Gentleman is considering making approaches to the Government, I shall be happy to support him in his efforts. It would be ideal if the Government provided one day and the Opposition gave one of their Supply Days. If they feel that a debate is urgent —I agree that the question of Rhodesia should be dealt with urgently—they have the opportunity because they have the Supply Days which, by parliamentary convention, are offered to them. But they refuse to have debates on foreign affairs just as they refuse to have debates on agriculture. However, that is another matter.

Mr. Evelyn King: The hon. Gentleman talks about establishing the facts of the situation. Only one fact matters, and that is already established. However it arose—it matters little how it arose—400 children, some of whom are only 13 years of age, are now in the hands of the Botswana Government. I should be satisfied if I could extract from the Government that their view is that it is the manifest duty of Botswana to return those children to their parents. That is all that the Minister has to say. Nothing else matters.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has made his little speech during my speech.


I do not think that he was addressing that point to me. It is not such a simple question.
Since UDI there has been a continual movement of men, women and children from Rhodesia to Zambia, Botswana and other areas. The International Defence and Aid Fund, with which I am concerned, has been trying to provide for refugees who have left the illegal regime in Rhodesia. The United Nations Children's Fund and other UN organisations have been helping to provide education for Rhodesians who failed to get a proper education under the Rhodesian régime. The World Council of Churches and other international organisations are also concerned about the problems that have arisen since UDI. They have actually been dealing with this problem. I admit that this is a major development and that we should find out the facts. I have here The Times and The Guardian reports. I have already quoted parts of them, so I do not want to go over the quotations again.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: No. I want to deal with the answer to the question that has been posed. The report in The Guardian states:
The Botswana Government has accepted a Rhodesian request that the International Red Cross should investigate the alleged abduction of 384 children from a Rhodesian mission school.
Mr. Philip Steenkamp, permanent secretary to President Seretse Khama of Botswana, said today that both the Red Cross and the press would be welcome to talk to the children who were today moved from villages near the Rhodesian border to Francistown in the north-east of the country.

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. The hon. Gentleman is a persistent interrupter. If he wants to speak, he will have the chance later. I shall give way to him if he will be patient.
The report goes on:
In a further statement on the affair the Government here
—the Botswana Government—
repeated that the children, aged between 12 and 20
—note the ages—
had willingly and without duress left the Manama Lutheran mission school in the south of Rhodesia on Sunday night.

The statement said that two senior officials from the capital, Gaberone, one of the deputy police commissioner, had questioned a random sample of the pupils and had failed to find one who claimed to have been forced into leaving their country, their families and their school.
All those questioned had said that they left under guerrilla escort to escape the dangers of Rhodesian security force operations in the border area.
Now I give way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If 400 children in his constituency did not like their parents and walked out, does he believe that the parents should have the right to have them back again? It is as simple as that. That is the essential question.

Mr. Evans: One must not think of a constituency in Britain and compare it—

Mr. Cormack: Why not?

Mr. Evans: —let me finish—and compare it with part of a geographical area under the control of an illegal regime, where the vast majority of people are denied elementary human rights. That is where Opposition Members are wrong. They are talking about Rhodesia as though it were a normal country when, in fact, it has been universally condemned by people throughout the world, except by some hon. Members opposite.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Would the hon. Member, using logic alone, agree that it is rather strange that at one fell swoop nearly 400 children and young people should decide to leave their parents and their homes and go off in this way, escorted by their pastors and teachers from the mission? Is it not a logical assumption that those children may by now be too frightened to say what is really in their minds?

Mr. Evans: It is difficult to talk about logic when one is talking about the illegal Rhodesian regime, where a small group of settlers has taken over a country and denied rights to the vast majority of the people, where that regime has been condemned universally at the United Nations, and the United Nations has determined that a policy of sanctions should be pursued against the regime. Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), talk as though this were only a game of cricket and we were discussing who


should go in next, whether somebody held his bat straight, and who should bowl. This is not a game of cricket. We are talking about an illegal regime.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is laying great stress on rights, illegality, and the rest, but will he address himself to this question? In any society, in any part of the world, is it not generally recognised that a parent has a right to be concerned about his child, about where his child is, and what his child is doing? Therefore, the simple question that we should be asking is whether, in the present situation, it is right or wrong for the feelings of parents to be totally disregarded? Should it not be the first consideration of the Government to safeguard the rights of those parents? Irrespective of the illegality of the regime, the Government have a responsibility for black Africans in Rhodesia, and they are British subjects.

Mr. Evans: Of course, when one talks about children one must be concerned about the rights of the parents, and I agree that if the Red Cross is to investigate the situation its representatives must make contact with the parents. But I know for a fact that many parents in Rhodesia have sought to have their children educated outside Rhodesia so as to allow their children to have a decent education, because they do not have sufficient opportunity to have a proper education in Rhodesia.
My point is that we cannot prejudge why these children have moved out of Rhodesia to Botswana. A large number of other people have moved from Rhodesia to Botswana. As has been pointed out, older Rhodesians from other parts of Rhodesia have left and joined the forces seeking the liberation of their country.
I hope that we shall achieve a peaceful solution to the problem of Rhodesia, but, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, there is a larger question here. We have to realise that we are talking about an illegal régime that has not met the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary, that it should accept the principle of majority rule, that there should be elections for majority rule within 18 months to two

years, that there should be agreement that there would be no independence without majority rule, and that negotiations should not be long drawn out. Those conditions have not been met.
Once again, we have seen Mr. Smith go to the conference table and say that he is prepared to give independence within two years, but he has reneged on that. He is not meeting the African leaders. He has pulled out of the Geneva talks. It is disturbing that, although the Rhodesian régime has been universally condemned, the Tories—although they vary from time to time—are, with the Vorster régime, giving succour to the illegal régime.
I believe that the Government will look after the interests of these children. If Opposition Members say that we should concern ourselves with their education and their welfare, I believe that we can meet that need, although it will entail public expenditure. We should try to ask the parents of the children whether they would prefer them to be educated in Botswana, or elsewhere, rather than in Rhodesia itself. I hope that the Red Cross will be allowed facilities by the illegal régime to meet the parents on their own, so that no action can be taken against them when the parents' requirements are ascertained.
It is all very well for the Opposition to talk about the dangers that are developing. What about the Tangwena tribe, who had their land taken from them in Rhodesia, being moved to another part of the country away from the land on which they and their ancestors had lived. That was done by the Smith régime, yet not one word was said by the Tory Party.
What about Garfield Todd, a former Prime Minister and leading figure in Rhodesia—he had a white skin, too—who was interned by the Smith régime? Although he came to the Geneva talks, he came there with one of the African nationalist parties, not with the Smith régime. What about Bishop Lamont, who was talking to African people and trying to reach a peaceful reconciliation of the situation but who was subject to false charges and interned? Again, there was not a word from the Opposition.
Now, however, the Tories think that they can get at the African nationalist leaders. They think "We have got them now. We can do something for old


Smithy. Smithy is in a good light at last." They speak of children abducted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point at some length, and we are straying somewhat out of order. I must ask him to stick to the main point.

Mr. Evans: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will recall that I was interrupted several times. I admit that I have spoken—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have shown considerable latitude towards both sides.

Mr. Evans: May I draw my remarks to a close—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is for the benefit of the House that we understand the position. This is a debate on the Adjournment of the House. No legislation is involved. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why my hon. Friend is not allowed to say anything, since it is a debate on an Adjournment motion?

Mr. Evans: I am not sure that I take my right hon. Friend's point. I think that I was saying a good deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must reply to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). The debate on motions made under this Standing Order
may include reference to any matter that would be in order on a motion to take note of the subject under discussion".

Mr. Evans: I have taken longer than I intended, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I put the matter to the Opposition in this way: we want a peaceful solution to the situation in Rhodesia; I do not think that it helps to try to exaggerate the desires of the African Presidents of the neighbouring countries, who also hope to reach a peaceful solution in Rhodesia as well as in Namibia; if the Smith régime will not get down to talks and will not sensibly and rationally discuss a movement towards full majority rights for the people of Rhodesia, inevitably this will lead to a liberation war in that part of Africa. That is why there will be moves by the

forces now operating in neighbouring African territories to make contact with the people, and there will be a massive movement of people.
We are here talking about children. I do not know how many of them are nearer 20 or nearer 12 years of age. Presumably, they are a cross-section, covering a wide range of children.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Evans: No, I shall not give way again. I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to concern themselves with the welfare of these children, and, if need be, ensure that they have an adequate education, not only from our resources but from the resources of the United Nations, which has funds for such purposes and can give these children that education. I hope that we shall make contact with their parents.
I hope that, unlike the Opposition, the Government will not prejudge the issue. I hope that they will not take account of what comes out from the illegal regime in Rhodesia but that they will take account of people like Sir Seretse Khama with whom we have had a long and good relationship.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I dissent from what has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). We are debating not the illegal regime in Rhodesia but the fate of 400 children who, whatever the contradictory accounts suggest, have left their homes and parents and are in a foreign country. Even the hon. Member would not accuse me of being an apologist for the Smith regime. Twenty-five years ago I opposed the federation efforts of the Labour Government and I remember the talks at the Victoria Falls Conference, at which blacks were not represented.
I claim to have the doubtful virtue of consistency. I claim to know Rhodesia and Botswana, and many other countries in Africa. I have been privileged to know Sir Seretse Khama for 30 years and I regard him as one of my closest friends.
Whatever views one has about the illegal regime—and I have strong views —there is one fact that goes without


saying; the feelings of parents for their children and the feelings of children for their parents are the same in the Soviet Union, Southern Africa, Chile or any other country. The first thing one must realise is the anguish that these parents must be suffering.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked what would be the feeling of the hon. Member for Aberdare if children were abducted from his constituency. But this situation is not comparable. Let us suppose that I had strong Republican views and lived in Northern Ireland. Let us suppose that I lived in a "no-go" area in either Londonderry or Belfast. Let us suppose that I was a member of the Provisionals or the IRA, that I felt strongly against the British Government, thought it was time that they cleared out and that it was time that the frontier was abolished. Let us suppose that my child thought that there was harassment and left Northern Ireland with a group of other children to go south to the Republic. This is assuming that the Botswana story is correct. Under those circumstances my reaction as a parent would be that I would wish the Government of Eire to reunite that child with me. The Government of Eire might be in a difficult position, but I would expect the diplomatic powers of the British Government to be used immediately to seek news of my child, or I would expect the authorities in the Republic to do that. I would regard it as an appalling commentary on the British Government if that child were not contacted immediately.
There are conflicting views, but we must remember that the central issue involves these children. We have been told by the Botswana authorities that the 400 children fled to escape death at the hands of the Smith reacute;gime. It is a strange coincidence that every one of those children should have taken that view—except the 17 who escaped, who promptly said that these were not the circumstances in which the event occurred.
Parents have certain rights, and it is essential that they are interviewed. I do not know exactly what is proposed. Perhaps an airlift is planned from some remote part of the Botswana frontier. But if the Red Cross is to do its job it must

do it in Rhodesia as well as Botswana. In American legislation, for instance, parents have an automatic right to have a child repatriated if that child has crossed a State frontier.
The Government have repeatedly asked "What should we have done?" I shall tell the Government what they should have done. These are citizens—children —for whom we have claimed a continuing constitutional responsibility. I am delighted that the Conservative Party initiated this debate. I hope that it means that in future the Conservatives will recognise that we have a continuing constitutional responsibility. I have heard many arguments from the Conservative Party, members of which say "We are washing our hands of the problem. Let us not have sanctions, because we cannot enforce them. Let us realise that we cannot go to Geneva, because we have no power." If the position of the Conservative Party is that Britain has a moral and constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia, our efforts will be strengthened.
That does not mean that it suits us to have responsibility in only some circumstances. The Government should have asked representatives of the British High Commission to go immediately to interview these children. They should not wait for the Red Cross and then tag along with them.
What happens if a British subject is arrested on a drug charge in Morroco, for instance? The consul immediately asks if the accused person can be seen in prison. In this case we should have had the immediate right to send our own diplomatic staff to see the children, on the basis that they are subjects for whom we have a responsibility. We may be unable to exercise that right in Rhodesia but we have a responsibility when the children are outside the régime, in a country with which we have friendly relations.
The circumstances in which the discussions take place are important. There are severe language problems. We also know the problems experienced at the time of the federation attempts, when questioning took place and district commissioners were told that they could state their case but not ask questions.
I do not wish to sound Victorian and paternalistic, but I am more interested in what the parents have to say than in


what a child of 13 or 14 has to say about the situation. It is important that the British High Commission goes in strength with the Red Cross. Problems may be involved in going into Rhodesia, but if we could go as part of that delegation we would find out the facts.
I shall not go into the details of what has happened. It will not help the case against majority rule. It will not gain support for the nationalists, some of whom I know well. It has probably made the Smith régime more obdurate or at least given it an additional excuse to be more obdurate.
All that matters is that 400 children have crossed from one country to another in circumstances which are a cause of conflict. It is plain that their parents want them back. It is nonsense to talk about asking the children where they want to be educated, and whether they want a comprehensive system or courses in knitting.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The right hon. Member said that he would not prejudge the issue, but he has prejudged it. He is stating the views of the parents. I do not care if they come here to be educated at Eton or Harrow. I do not want to argue about education, but if the parents are willing for these children to be educated outside Rhodesia would the right hon. Gentleman deny them that right?

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the parents will say "Yes, we do not want our children. We do not want to see them again"—

Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not say that.

Mr. Thorpe: All right, let me get it correct—"We want them educated out of the country. We are prepared to have them out of our sight for an indefinite period"—because that is what is implied —all I would say, if that is the view that the parents expressed about their 12–year-old children, is that perhaps the children are better off elsewhere. However, if the hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is likely to be the average reaction of any parent in any country in the world, all I can say is that we need very large psychiatric units in most of the countries in the world to deal with battered babies and bad parents. I cannot

think it is conceivable that these parents do not want their children back. I am saying that they have a right to have them back and that the Government must do something to bring that about.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) began by taking a very objective view. He said that he was not prepared to prejudge the issue. Regrettably, at the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman not only trivialised by seeking to put words into the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) but went on to prejudge the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman made some curious remarks about the feelings of parents towards their children. The difficulty about trying to argue as between different countries and different periods of time is that it is almost impossible to draw analogies which are perfect. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the analogy of Belfast and Londonderry. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting, for example, that those Jewish parents in Nazi Germany who tried to get their children out of Nazi Germany were in need of psychiatric treatment, that they had so little feeling for their children that they wanted them out of Nazi Germany and educated elsewhere, and for that reason required psychiatric treatment?
I have a great deal in common with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of Southern Africa and a great deal of respect for him. However, I think that he should reflect carefully, and read his speech tomorrow and see what he really said. He might find that his speech came out in, perhaps, not the way that he intended.
There has been a subtle change in the debate since it started. The argument that now seems to be entering the discustion is about the rights of parents to see their children and to care for their children. Those rights are legitimate.
I say immediately that the thought that the abduction of children at gunpoint could be approved of is obnoxious and foreign to me. I could not condone the abduction of children in any circumstances.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) began his speech


by saying—this is about the only matter on which there is complete agreement in the House—that there are contradictory stories. The curious thing was that by his every word and syllable and by every inflection of his voice he accepted entirely the story which he had read in the Press about the abduction, and expressed it in such a way that he went on to say that this was the way in which Joshua Nkomo's men would be expected to behave because they were Matabele, whereas the Mashona were a peaceful people—such a peaceful people that they were expected to rise against the Matabele for independence. The hon. and learned Gentleman used such terms of judgment on the African people as to show that he knows nothing at all about the situation. He condemned one side before he even thought about the situation or tried to find out the facts.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has only just entered the Chamber. He must wait his turn.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had the grace to say that he accepted the fact that Sir Seretse Khama's Government were longstanding and upright members of the Commonwealth. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sir Seretse was trying to run Botswana in the interests of the people. Then, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was afraid that Sir Seretse does not know what is going on in South Africa and is not in charge of events. The right hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that he understands Sir Seretse Khama well, yet he condemned him out of hand by saying that he does not know what is going on.
I do not understand why so many right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been prepared, on almost every occasion when there have been border incidents, either major or minor—the phrase "border incidents" does not adequately describe the things that have happened—to take the view of the Smith regime and condemn the African nationalist leaders out of hand.
I should have had a great deal more respect for the hon. and learned Member

for Beaconsfield if he had taken the same vigorous attitude of indignation when the Smith regime went into the refuge camps in Mozambique and butchered the population there; yet he did not say a word about that.
We heard no word of protest from right hon. and hon. Members opposite when we read reports in the Press to the effect that eight Rhodesian terrorists had been hanged out of hand after a secret trial. Incidentally, that was on the same day that the Government were preventing the United Nations from passing resolutions about excursions by the Smith regime into Botswana because they did not want to upset the delicate balance of the negotiations. The Smith regime has no right to hang anyone in Rhodesia. Yet there was not a sound from hon. Members opposite.
One reads reports in the Press week by week to the effect that Africans in the vicinity of guerrilla activities are shot on suspicion of being camp followers of the guerrillas, but there is not a sound of protest from Tory Members. When Africans are shot after curfew time simply because they are out after the stated hour—they are shot without trial, without pity and without mercy—there is not a cheep of condemnation from any right hon. and hon. Members on the Tory Benches.
I think that it is a great pity that Tory Members deny the statements made in Botswana by the Botswana authorities, because this is not the first occasion on which there has been an alleged abduction. There was a quite recent case in which 105 Rhodesians were alleged to have been abducted from a beer hall north of Similale. All these people were questioned. They denied entirely that they had been abducted by guerrillas. They said that they had left because they had been told that they were to be recruited into the Rhodesian forces and they did not want to fight against their own people.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I think that the view taken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State shows that significant and quick action is being taken to try to establish the true facts. I think that in this case, as in many others, it may well turn out that the truth lies somewhere between the two


contradictory set of facts that we have heard.
I believe that the children who left probably were escorted by army guerrillas. They may well have left because they were afraid of the kind of shooting which goes on day by day by the Rhodesian forces. Recently, someone who taught at a school very close to this point told me that every school desk was scored with the initials "ZAPU". When walls were whitewashed, very soon afterwards they would be daubed with the slogans of ZAPU demanding freedom.
When dealing with children aged anything from 13 to 17 who are facing a situation where going on around them is a struggle to obtain independence, there must mixtures of fear, emotion and pride in their own people.
I do not wish to prejudge the situation in any way, but what may well have happened is that some of the children left because they were afraid of what might have happened if they had remained when a large number of the population went over. Some went because they were caught up in the emotions of joining a freedom struggle. Some of the older ones probably went after very deep thought about wishing to take part in the liberation struggle. I do not know what the position might be. All I am suggesting is that that is a reasonable hypothesis. I am saying that we should try to judge the situation as it exists.
The suggestion that has been made by those who are isolated from events, that it is necessary for guerrillas to press-gang people into armed forces at gunpoint, has proved not to have stood the test of time. Similar stories appeared in the Press at the time of the Algerian conflict. Similar stories appeared throughout the whole period of the events in Vietnam. When we visit Southern Africa we find similar stories about Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau.
Similarly, we are told that the only way in which the liberation movements are able to survive and recruit is at gunpoint. It has been said that various liberation movements have been forced to recruit at gunpoint and to obtain food and help in order to survive at gunpoint. Such accounts have always been disproved. The fundamental mistake that many right hon. and hon. Members

make, as well as others outside the House, is to fail to take account of the deep desire of the people of Zimbabwe and other parts of Southern Africa for their freedom. Nothing will quench that desire, and certainly it is not necessary for anyone to have to recruit at gunpoint.
The only people who need the force of the gun to survive are the 248,000 whites who are trying to dominate nearly 7 million Africans. That will not succeed.
The tragedy is that when members of the Smith régime continually cross the border into Botswana not a word is said against the incursions. I hope that the truth will be found, and that in this case it will be on my side, but if it is not I shall condemn anyone who has abducted children at gunpoint.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The tragic incident that we are debating has attracted a good deal of attention, partly because of the number of children involved and partly because it has taken place in Botswana where there is relative freedom of information, compared with Mozambique, for example, where there is an iron curtain of censorship. But, alas, it is not unique.
I was in Rhodesia in the summer and I took the opportunity to cross-examine fairly closely the security forces on how the several thousand guerillas who are mostly in Mozambique were recruited. Their answers came close to the opinions recently expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Some, of course, were prompted either by political idealism or by a sense of adventure. These were mostly boys in the higher schools, although not in the multi-racial university. Quite a number went, as soldiers always will, because they were unemployed or because they had differences with their tribal chiefs or the heads of their villages, but something like half have been regularly abducted by armed guerilla forces, rounding them up and taking them away at gunpoint, giving them the alternative of joining the guerrilla forces or death. This incident we are debating seems to fit closely into a pattern that has been reproduced time and again in the eastern regions of Rhodesia over the past two years.
To understand the significance of this incident it is worth considering what happens in the ordinary way to those who are abducted. A great many of them are young people between the ages of 12 and 20. Perhaps the majority of them are what we would call minors. They are taken to a camp. They are then flown to Zambia or Tanzania where they are trained. What does that mean? Half the training is military. There is training in the use of land mines, hand grenades and small arms. Half the training is political and consists of crude indoctrination of a Marxist character. Those who have been subsequently captured by the security forces have shown in most cases a rudimentary knowledge, but a well-understood catalogue of the most elementary Marxist guerilla thinking. A few of them have shown rather more sophisticated indoctrination. Clearly, these people are taught something about fighting, and something about politics. The people who instruct them are either directly from the Soviet Union or agents of the Soviet Union.
What happens when the training is completed? They then go to camps in Mozambique or, more recently, in Zambia. From those camps they are sent to kill. Mostly, they are sent to kill their fellow Africans—for example, heads of villages or Government officials such as veterinary officers or medical officers. They maim cattle and beat up villagers who have been thought to be friendly to the Smith authorities. Then they abduct other young people to take up the same rôle as themselves.
What are the consequences for the children who have become guerrillas? Many of them are killed in the fighting with the security forces. Quite a few of them are captured and hanged. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was talking about the right of the Smith régime to hang. I do not want to go into that argument. Suffice it to say that quite a few are hanged. Many of the young people who are abducted are trained and sent back again.
That is what lies ahead for the 400 or so children we are discussing unless something is done. I am pretty sure that if it were not for the intervention yesterday of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell)

the children would already be on the way to Zambia and Tanzania to begin the process that would result in their death, as casualties of the security forces or on the gallows.
I do not think that the children were volunteers. If some of them over the age of 18 were volunteers, that is their affair, but the great majority were children. They were British children. In this affair we have no right to discriminate on grounds of colour between black and white. Although we have no jurisdiction of any effective character inside Rhodesia we are responsible for them once they are outside. We have a clear obligation to get them returned to their parents.
It is farcial to say that the parents may go to see the children in Botswana in circumstances in which it may be difficult for the children to speak with any freedom. We still have some influence in Botswana, and I join with the Minister of State and others in paying tribute to Sir Seretse Khama. Heaven knows, he has little enough reason to have much affection for a Labour Government. When I first entered the House, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker stopped him marrying the lady of his choice because she was white. However, he is a big enough man to have got over that. We have influence with him, although we are not the only people who have such influence. Time and again I have heard hon. Members from the Labour Benches saying that Mr. Vorster should put pressure on Mr. Smith to do this, that or the other. Mr. Vorster is equally in a position to lend a hand in Botswana if we cannot do the job ourselves.
The abduction has a rather wider significance than the debate has so far suggested. Why has it taken place? Why were the children carried off into Botswana? I am sure that the Minister of State realises better than any of us, with his access to intelligence, that the reason is that Mr. Nkomo is trying to build up his guerrilla forces so as to give himself a little more clout in his negotiations with his colleague Mr. Mugabe in the Patriotic Front.
We want to keep this debate as much as possible concentrated on this particular human problem, but none of us can forget what happened in Angola, where


three liberation movements—so-called—were fighting one another, and still are fighting one another, with great loss of human life. This incident, this abduction of children to strengthen Mr. Nkomo's forces, is an ugly foretaste of the civil conflict that could well follow after independence in Rhodesia.
I think that the incident has a deeper significance still. As far as any of us can assess the situation inside Rhodesia, the so-called Patriotic Front of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe is a minority. It claims—I do not know with how much justification—to represent the guerrilla forces, but nobody is in much doubt that it is a minority in so far as it represents the Africans inside Rhodesia. All the signs are that Bishop Muzorewa speaks for the majority of articulate urban Africans, and it is very likely that the tribal chiefs speak for the majority of the still largely illiterate African tribesmen in the countryside. It is true that the five Presidents back the Patriotic Front.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in statements to the House and in the statement he extracted from the Foreign Ministers of the European Community, has said very firmly that he does not accept, and nor apparently does the United States, the idea of an internal solution—that is, a compromise arrived at between the Smith Government and Bishop Muzorewa or the chiefs or all of them combined, if that were possible. The right hon. Gentleman is thus turning his back on the objective of majority rule. Already, by virtue of his continuing support for the policy of sanctions, he is helping the guerrillas in their operations. He is now openly backing the Patriotic Front, or appears to be, against the majority black forces inside Rhodesia. He is, in effect, backing the guerrillas. Yet he must know that they are much more akin to the MPLA in Angola and the Frelimo forces in Mozambique than to any moderate or democratic forces such as we had hoped to encourage in Rhodesia itself.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The right hon. Gentleman always speaks in a very well-informed manner about this subject, but perhaps I may correct him on one matter.

He said that we were explicitly backing the Patriotic Front. We have repeatedly made clear that if the Geneva conference or any other conference reconvened we should not be content with only the Patriotic Front representing the nationalists, but would, on the contrary, renew our previous invitation to Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa.

Mr. Amery: I am most grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to give the fullest credence to his statement, but in saying as he has, and as he has apparently encouraged his European colleagues and perhaps the Americans to say, that they would not accept any internal solution, he has virtually been saying to Bishop Muzorewa "Do not do a deal with Smith". He has virtually been saying that nothing which the five Presidents do not accept is any good, and that the men who appear to command, or claim to command, the guerrilla forces must have a decisive say in any settlement. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that those men are already largely the instruments of the Soviet Union. I know that he argues that the best way to contain Soviet imperialism is to try to win them over, but I am sure that, with his sense of history and his experience of politics, he knows that that argument is false and that one cannot appease the unappeasable.
Many of us think that the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps the West as a whole, are prepared to sacrifice not just the white minority but the black majority in Rhodesia if that will enable them to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union in the area. The Kissinger proposals may well have been the last chance to maintain Western influence in Southern Africa. I was very glad to see the statement yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we had wasted the opportunity provided by Kissinger. Now the choice is whether we stand up to Soviet imperialism or run away.
The incident that we are debating is a test case. Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary prepared to put his foot down and make sure that the 400 children do not go to fortify the guerrilla movement, or will he stand back, and, therefore, in a passive sense, make himself a recruiting sergeant for terrorism?

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has, not for the first time, made a well-informed and a very serious contribution. I have not been in Rhodesia as recently as he has. Therefore, I suffer from having less knowledge than I used to have of the position, but I tend to agree with what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, that this afternoon we are chiefly concerned with the matter of the children and their abduction across the border into a foreign country.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) on bringing the matter forward. It is clear to me that if he had not done so there would have been none of the slight give in the situation that appears from what was announced this afternoon from the Dispatch Box. Such alleviation of the distress of the parents, such comfort as there may be for them and all concerned, has come from the action of my hon. and learned Friend and of the Rhodesian Government, as witnessed by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), when he read from a report in today's issue of The Times.
I should like to read the following account of the Rhodesian Government's approach to the Botswana Government:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs called upon the Government of Botswana to allow the parents of the abducted children an opportunity to see their children again. He pointed out that all those abducted were minors and still subject to parental guidance and control. He further called on the Botswana Government to give an undertaking that the children would not be transported northwards for terrorist training. The Minister said that it was the Botswana Government itself that had alleged that the children were refugees and not terrorist recruits.'
Whatever position we may take on the situation in Rhodesia, I think that that is a moderate, statesmanlike initiative in the circumstances, and one with which all of us who are concerned about the fate of the children will agree.
It was later reported in the Press that as a result of that initiative by the Rhodesian Government—and, I believe, the prominence given to the affair by my hon. and learned Friend, leading to such speeches as we may make this afternoon—action has been taken. Not one move that I can detect has been

made as a result of the so-called action of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Fairbairn: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on what would have been the reaction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Government if the situation had been reversed and 400 children from Mozambique, Tanzania or Botswana had been abducted, allegedly as refugees, by the security forces in Rhodesia?

Mr. Hastings: It would have been a more violent protest than we have heard so far.
The fact is that a few officials far away have been instructed to make a few approaches to other officials, who are not of very high position, judging by what was said by the Minister this afternoon. The Minister would not even say when this happened. Most of us suspect that this was not even done until my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield math his move yesterday. That is the burden of our charge. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), with whose remarks I could not wholly agree, nevertheless, said that he did not approve of the abduction of children in these or in any other circumstances. It is the indifference of the Government at the abduction of children that causes us to charge them this afternoon. I am not sure whether we shall get a reply to our charge, but we shall need one in some form or other.
I missed the intervention of the Foreign Secretary yesterday, but his words as reported in Hansard caused a chill of apprehension to run down my spine. They conveyed both cynicism and indifference. The right hon. Gentleman complained about the incursion of Rhodesian forces across the border. I have no doubt that that may well have happened both there and elsewhere. If there is no hope of help from any quarter and one is in charge of security forces in such a situation, and if one knows that there are enemy camps across the border filled with men who are capable of an offensive operation such as that undertaken on Sunday, what is one supposed to do? What are the Rhodesian forces supposed to do in such circumstances? Are they supposed to cower in their barracks while


the houses and villages of innocent people are pillaged? Are they to be expected to do that when they can take some action to prevent it?
Part of the trouble about this Government and their Ministers is that they do not believe that such events as this can happen. They cannot envisage these situations. They bring to bear no experience or understanding of the situation in Southern Africa. That is why their efforts have been so ineffective in dealing with this appalling tragedy.
I turn to the question of which is the right version of this story. We were invited by the Minister this afternoon to give credence—indeed, equal credence —to either of two stories. We must envisage the situation involving 400 children who, presumably after deep consideration —with all the consideration that a child of 12 or even a young person of the age of 20 can bring—decide to leave their country, their parents and their strict religious Lutheran upbringing and background. After deep consideration they suddenly, all in one day, decide that they wish to march away and leave it all behind them—accompanied by friendly men with machine guns. We must also envisage a situation in which 17 of the children have second thoughts on the way, lie in a ditch, and come back to say that the situation was not like that at all. We can only treat with contempt a responsible so-called Government whose representatives come to this House and ask us to take such a statement seriously. That is what we were presented with yesterday and this afternoon.
Most of us, and indeed most Labour Members, know very well what happened. Moreover, I dare say that most hon. Members have been sufficiently well informed this afternoon to realise from what was said the way in which these guerrilla armies are being built up, and their purpose, which has nothing to do with an independence settlement, but which simply concerns power in central Africa.
Heaven knows, we have seen enough since the beginning of this story and the so-called liberation of Africa and the long, wretched and bloody record of the intervention of the Soviet Union, with its successes so far. We have seen a miserable loss of nerve on the part of the West, including the Americans, as well

as ourselves, and what it brings with it. It brings bloodshed and misery, and this incident is just a tiny tragic example of it.
Apparently the Government give credence to this version, but wish to disregard what is said in television interviews and firsthand reports or, if not to disregard those reports, certainly to regard the version of what I believe undoubtedly did happen as no more than a possibility.
The Government's duty is clear. First, as to the two versions, when they have made up their mind as a result of reports from the officials concerned. It was suggested earlier in the debate that the Government should send officials to the scene to interview parents and obtain statements. Of course they should have done that already. When the Government have taken some steps to inform themselves, will the Foreign Secretary tell us which version is correct? I see the Foreign Secretary nodding, but he may well be nodding to his Parliamentary Private Secretary. We require from the Government an assurance as to their view of which of the two versions is correct.
Members of the Government constantly pop up in the Chamber with the question, What would we do if we were in their shoes? But they are supposed to be the elected Government of this country. There are many things they can do. These children have been taken away to join Nkomo's army. In particular, would it not be a good thing to convey to Mr. Nkomo that, if this matter is proved, he will not be welcome at any further negotiations unless these children are immediately returned? Could we not do that for a start? Let us at least make a protest of some sort. Even a modest request such as that made by the Rhodesian Government would help.
We demand action designed to secure the return of these children to their parents, and nothing else will do. The example set by this Government in this affair so far fills me with shame—shame that I have to be ruled by such a Government; shame almost, that we have to live in the same country as they do. This is the worst case of this kind in the years since the Labour Government took office. It fills me with despair about our future.


It is not too late for the Foreign Secretary to have the courage and guts to make a stand on this issue. Perhaps even now he can manage to alleviate the misery and suffering of the parents of these children and held to get them home.

6.18 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: Ever since UDI was declared, I have argued that Britain has a responsibility for what takes place in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I do not choose my times to make that clear but I have said constantly that we have that responsibility. I reiterate again this afternoon that we have a responsibility for what takes place in Southern Rhodesia and for actions that affect the people of that country.
Although I agreed with part of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)—I certainly feel that it is most undesirable for these children to have been abducted, and I condemn such action loudly and clearly—I do not agree with the analogy which he sought to draw with Northern Ireland. The tragedy of the situations in Northern Ireland and in Southern Rhodesia is that children are being involved and are being indoctrinated. When the story has been completely unfurled, we may well know the truth behind the two versions. Indeed, there may be another version that we do not know.
Unlike many of those who have spoken, however, until I know what has happened I do not wish to condemn the situation out of hand. Neither I nor anybody else knows what took place—other than the fact that these children have been moved and that this has alarmed a large number of people in this country. I wish to emphasise, for the benefit of those who are always accusing Labour Members of double standards, that, if children have been abducted against their will and against their parents' will. I oppose and condemn any such action.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear that up to this moment we have done all that we possibly could have done. I understand that inquiries were begun on Tuesday, before the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) made his representations. I have met our High Commissioner in

Botswana. I have every confidence in her and the way in which she will carry out her task and try to discover the truth of the situation. I have a great deal of confidence in the International Red Cross. I am glad that it is to be involved in trying to unearth the truth. I shall wait until I know what has happened.
During the speech of the Minister of State, a Conservative Member interrupted to ask about the language problem and about the dialects and whether my hon. Friend would ensure that someone was involved in the task who could understand and speak the various dialects. I wonder whether the correspondent of The Times who has been quoted so much today understood all the dialects on which he was supposed to be reporting. I wonder how he interpreted the views of the parents and others he was supposed to be quoting. No one has questioned that, but his is the version that is being used here.
What disturbs me is the way in which any explanation other than that offered by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) is ruled out. I do not know what has happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that it is possible that there is a bit of the truth on both sides. Until I know the truth, I am not prepared to condemn out of hand anything that the Government may have done. If my right hon. Friend comes to the House and says "This is the explanation" and if it does not fit with what the hon. and learned Member or the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire have said, I believe they will say that they do not accept it. The Government are on a hiding to nothing. It will only be those who are prepared to wait and weigh up the position who may discover some of the truth.
I cannot help feeling, having listened to the hon. and learned Member, that he more than anyone else in the House is guilty of double standards in relation to Southern Rhodesia. He talks about the Charter of Human Rights. Did he talk about the Charter—

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Miss Lestor: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. It was the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), who


spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, who quoted the Charter of Human Rights. Did the hon. and learned Member talk about our responsibility in Southern Rhodesia when people were hanged there by the Smith regime? The hon. and learned Member has said that we have no responsibility there and that the country is virtually independent. At one time he wanted Rhodesia to be independent and said so very strongly in this House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Lady is confusing my views on this subject with those of other hon. Members. I have never said that Britain had no responsibility to Rhodesia in relation to prisoners. I know others said that. I have never done so.

Miss Lestor: The hon. and learned Member has said time and again, when hangings took place in Southern Rhodesia and when there were actions of a kind that we said were reprehensible, that there was nothing that Britain could do about them. The right hon. Member for Knutsford talked about the Charter of Human Rights. Did he quote that at the time of the hangings? Did he quote it at the time of the butchery of refugees in Mozambique? This is what I mean by double standards. I have always accepted that Britain is concerned with what takes place in Southern Rhodesia. My position has never altered. Some Conservative Members have not taken that position but have been apologists for what Ian Smith has done. If they are now saying that we have responsibility for what has happened to these children, they cannot say "This has nothing to do with us. Southern Rhodesia has its independeire, and we must recognise that."

Mr. John Davies: The hon. Lady has perhaps misunderstood or misheard me when I referred to the United Nations Charter. I referred to that part of the Charter which absolutely sets aside for all member countries the concept of using force to settle problems affecting international relations. I hope that she is not accusing me of double standards on such a matter.

Miss Lestor: I understood perfectly well what the right hon. Gentleman said. He has underlined my point by intervening. He quotes the United Nations Charter in respect of alleged violence

against children, but he did not quote that during the time when Smith ruled by violence. Conservative Members use the United Nations Charter when it suits them. We argued long ago that the hangings in Southern Rhodesia were against the Charter.
I do not know what has happened with these children. I want to know. If children have been abducted against their will, if they are to be trained in guerrilla camps against their will and the will of their parents, that is wrong and I condemn it as loudly as anyone in the House. I will not prejudge the situation. Neither will I choose my moment when it suits me to say that we have a responsibility in Southern Rhodesia for one thing but not for another. That kind of attitude is typical of the double standards which we have heard today.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should understand that this debate is not about the Rhodesian tragedy, as some Labour Members have sought to make it. It is about what has happened to 400 children and the anxiety and anguish caused to their parents. Above all, it is about the moral duty and the political responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for a people who live in a territory which has for many years been in rebellion against the Crown but who are British subjects.
There is no doubt that 400 black African children in a mission school have been moved to Botswana, out of the control of their parents. The Rhodesian authorities claim that the children were abducted and taken over the border under duress, and the 17 who managed to escape have said that this is so. On the other hand the spokesman of a friendly Commonwealth Government, Botswana, has said that the children crossed over the border freely. It was clear yesterday to anyone in the House that the Foreign Secretary was sceptical of the truth of the Rhodesian claim. But it is significant that the Rhodesian authorities have asked the International Red Cross to make an immediate investigation.
Those of us who have been concerned for some years with the forcible detention of innocent women and children in Ethiopian prisons know that attempts by


that great international charity to make contact with those prisoners in order to establish the conditions under which they were held have been refused permission to do so by the military authorities in that country. At lease the Rhodesian authorities have asked the International Red Cross, an internationally respected body, to make an investigation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Botswana Government have asked the Rhodesian authorities to allow the International Red Cross to visit Botswana citizens abducted and imprisoned in Rhodesia. Will he support that request?

Sir B. Braine: I am not only aware of that; it was to be the very point I wished to make. The hon. Gentleman has intervened in almost every speech so far. If he will only listen for a moment, he will see that I am not prejudging anything.
I have been privileged to know Sir Seretse Khama for many years. I remember, when I first came to this House, the shameful treatment that he received from the then Labour Government. They should hang their heads in shame for what they did to him at that time. Nor can anyone accuse me of being partial to the Smith régime. I was the Under-Secretary of State who helped to steer through this House the 1961 Southern Rhodesian constitution, which, if it had been accepted by the Rhodesian electorate, might well have led to a far happier future for their country. I repeat, no one can accuse me of partiality towards the rebel régime in Rhodesia. I am concerned here, however, not with that broader matter but with a human issue which should cause anxiety and concern to every hon. Member.
The Government's responsibility is not to be shuffled off because the Botswana Government have said that they will be pleased to receive a delegation from the International Red Cross. The children are our wards. They are the children of persons who are in law British subjects. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has not only a moral responsibility but a duty to make inquiries directly of the Botswana Government and to instruct the British High Commissioner—a person I know and respect

immensely—not to make inquiries at some official level but to visit the children. These children are British subjects and are, therefore, our responsibility, and when she visits them our High Commissioner should take some of their parents with her. It should not be difficult to fly a few representative parents and teachers from Rhodesia to Gaberones. The plain truth is that no steps whatever were taken in this regard until my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) raised this matter yesterday.
In any event, even if the children say that they want to stay and that they had been carried away with enthusiasm and idealism—let us assume for a moment that they had chosen voluntarily to cross the border and to fight for a cause—the question arises as to whether their parents have any natural rights to object. There is no one in this House who does not know the answer to that. This debate is about an alleged outrage against civilised standards, against humanity itself.
My hon. Friends and I have made no judgment as to what actually happened.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Oh!

Sir B. Braine: Then let me speak for myself. I have made no judgment as to what happened. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say that the Government have asked that the children should not be moved to a third country. Credit should be given for that. It is a positive, decisive and sensible move, one which we would have expected the Government to make at the beginning. It is clear, however, that that action would not have been taken had it not been for the intervention by my hon. and learned Friend.
I have immense respect for Sir Seretse Khama. I am certain that he will heed the Government's request in every way, although I have some anxiety, which should be voiced, that he may be in a position of special difficulty. He has no defence forces to speak of. He occupies a position of exceptional delicacy, squeezed between the Republic of South Africa and an embattled Rhodesia. He may well need support from those who protest their respect and friendship for him.
Unhappily, the Minister of State totally missed the point. He did not grasp the depth of feeling on this side of the House—and I suspect that it is on his own side as well—about this issue. I will spell it out. From the beginning of time, men and women in every society have regarded the abduction of children as a most heinous crime. Some of us remember too well the abduction of children in Greece in the terrible days after 1945.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I am glad that my hon. Friend has recalled that situation. I was in Greece in another capacity at the time. Thousands of children were abducted. The then Labour Government, between 1947 and 1949, robustly condemned what happened and did not seek to equivocate as to what might or might not have happened.

Sir B. Braine: Yes—but that Labour Government were led by more robust characters. I remember those days well. I remember, too, how, just before the end of the war, when I was attached to one of the American armies moving into Germany, a Jewish survivor, a partisan fighter, came into my headquarters and was asking questions about what might have happened to his family. He said he feared that his wife, who had been taken to a concentration camp in the middle of the war, his children and his parents were all dead. When the war was over, all the terrible facts were made clear and we knew what had happened to millions like them. But I remember his anguish when he told me he feared that his four children were dead.
We do not need to be reminded that whenever a child is abducted by criminals for ransom everyone regards it as the vilest of crimes, an interference with the natural rights of parents brutally cut off from their children. Our hearts should go out to the parents of the 400 missing children.

Fairbairn: Even if one accepts the opposition story, does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a right of parents to have their children back, certainly those under the age of 16, regardless of whether they were abducted or went voluntarily for whatever reason?

Sir B. Braille: That is self-evident. One of the tragedies of this situation is that not a single voice has been raised on the Labour Benches in that sense. What has happened to the conscience of the Labour Party? What has happened to a party that used to be dedicated, so I have always understood, to the proposition that the strong should help and protect the weak?
Let us pray that when the true facts are ascertained, as they should have been already by our diplomatic representatives on the spot, the story is not as we fear, that these children went voluntarily and that they were led gladly by their teachers across the border. Let us hope that that is true. Even so, it leaves unresolved and unanswered the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). But we have no right to assume that that is so, and certainly the Government have no right to assume it.
Yesterday the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary treated the whole matter with contempt. He has now been stirred into belated action. Yet his duty was clear from the beginning. Rhodesia may be in a state of rebellion against the Crown, but its people—all its people—are British subjects. It is not merely common humanity but the political duty of the Government that requires the right hon. Gentleman to intervene, not only on behalf of the children but on behalf of their parents as well. The Government stand condemned for their lethargy and their failure to rise to the occasion, and I hope that we shall register our displeasure at the end of the debate.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: An innocent wandering into the Chamber—assuming that there are any innocents wandering into this Chamber—could be forgiven for thinking that the debate was basically about the alleged abduction of a number of children from Rhodesia into Botswana. That has been the superficial content of the debate. I doubted before the debate began whether that was the real reason for it. Anyone who has listened to most of it, as I have done, will have discovered very quickly that that is not, however, what the debate is about at all.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State made matters plain to anyone who was anxious about the situation—and we are all anxious about it, so let us have no false accusations, since those who have spoken on this side of the House have made it clear that they are as appalled by the abduction of children as is any hon. Member opposite. The question is how the alleged abductions took place. But that was not the reason why this debate took place.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained precisely what the Foreign Office had done, which was to my satisfaction and was all that could have been expected of it and more in that it had involved the Red Cross, that there was to be access to the children and, we now hear, to the parents as well, and that the whole matter was to be investigated, one would have expected that for any reasonable man that would be the end of the matter. But it was not the end. Many Opposition Members were clearly very distressed to hear what my hon. Friend said. They were rather upset to hear the news. It may be that they would have preferred evidence on which they could have based some criticism of Foreign Office activity.
The reason why the debate continued was not that it was about the alleged abduction of 400 schoolchildren. This debate has been part of a consistent campaign by many Opposition Back Benchers, who now appear to have been joined by their colleagues on the Front Bench—we see the tail wagging the dog on this issue—in an attempt to discredit those who want freedom and liberation in Rhodesia and a consistent attempt to give succour and support to Smith and his gang. In the eyes and minds of many Opposition Members, that is precisely the object of this debate. If they do not recognise the truth of that, it is high time that they examined their own actions over the last few months and years.
I am not sure whether Opposition Members were involved in a massive campaign when, just a few weeks ago, eight people were not just moved across a border and not just deprived of some of their rights but were deprived of all that they had—their lives. They were tried by an illegal court, judged by an illegal judge under the auspices of an illegal

régime, and executed—[HON. MEMBERS: "For murder."] I am getting precisely the reaction that I expected. To many Opposition Members, law and order means only law and order for laws which they can support and for order which they can support. It is not a principle with which they are very happy.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend is not doing his case sufficient justice. Opposition Members shouted that it was murder. The evidence was never published, and the trial was in secret.

Mr. Grocott: Opposition Members have access to the Smith régime in the way that I do not. No doubt they have this information, which is useful to them.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was absolutely clear in his mind about what was good and what was evil in the world, but he refused to apply that clarity of mind to the issue of Rhodesian atrocities in Mozambique. I wish that I had a memory which stretched back far enough to enable me to recall whether Opposition Members called for an emergency debate on that issue and whether they condemned unequivocally the butchering of villagers on that occasion.
It seems to me that the dual standards about which we hear so often in debate are clearly those of the Opposition. They go about their methods of discrediting the nationalists in a way that has been tried all too often. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) touched upon some of them. We have had endless argument about who represents the majority of the Africans in Rhodesia, who represents factions and who represents tribal groups. I wish that the Opposition would apply their minds to the most obvious truth of all, which is that Smith leads almost no one in Rhodesia and that the group he represents are people who are willing to hang on to their wealth and political privilege by force of arms if necessary.
Today we are debating the alleged abduction of children and the rights of those children, about which the Opposition have professed such concern. Let us consider the concern that they have for the future that these children would have were they to have the misfortune to live for any length of time under


the Smith régime. Let us examine one or two of the possibilities.
We know, of course, that these children would have no political rights. We know that they would have nothing as fundamental as the right to vote. The Opposition know that well enough, but they always get very upset when a few hometruths are put to them. I am glad to notice that they all appear to be listening. They know well enough that there is no question of the Africans in Rhodesia, including the children who are alleged to have been abducted, being given normal political rights. The children would have grown up aliens in their own country —

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was Mr. Joshua Nkomo, who may be the person who is recruiting these young persons for guerrilla purposes, who accepted a constitution in 1961 which by now would have had the effect of a large number of Africans taking part in the government of that country but who, on the instructions of the OAU—the famous front-line Presidents—then withdrew?

Mr. Grocott: There has not been a shred of evidence since 1961 or before that the whites in Rhodesia have been willing to grant fundamental political and human rights to the majority in Rhodesia other than by force of arms. That is the only reason why they have moved to the position that they have now. No hon. Member should think that Smith is suddenly a democrat, that he has seen the logic of democratic arguments and that he now accepts the principle of majority rule. We have heard that suggested. But does he accept it? What proof have we? Does he not still support the Land Tenure Act, which divides the land equally between 250,000 whites and nearly 7 million Africans? Is that Tory freedom? Is that Tory justice?
We know what this debate has been about. It has been about the two sides in the Rhodesian conflict. It is time that the Opposition had some sense of history and decided which side they are on.

6.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I shall not comment on the

question of dual standards, though there is a good deal that might be said about it. Nor shall I comment on the monopoly of moral virtue which has been adopted by a number of right hon. and hon. Members today, though much that was said about their monopoly of virtue had a very strong whiff of hypocrisy about it. I want to answer one or two specific questions which were put to me, especially by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
I was asked, first, whether Her Majesty's Government took any action before the exchanges in the House yesterday and the threat of this debate, or whether we acted only under pressure. The answer is that on Tuesday the British High Commissioner raised the matter, both in the morning and in the evening, with the Botswana Government. That was the day before the exchanges in the House at Question Time yesterday. Of course, she raised the matter again yesterday.
I have been told—I hope that this will reassure the House—that the High Commissioner's request for access to the children for a member of the High Commission staff was readily granted. Also, two parents of the children have asked through the Rhodesian Red Cross to see their children, and the Botswana Government have agreed. If the parents can persuade their children to go back to Rhodesia with them, no obstacle will be placed in their way. Botswana would welcome an inquiry by the International Red Cross, and I have asked our mission in Geneva to speak to the Red Cross. A Red Cross representative is going to Gaberones tomorrow and I have asked our High Commissioner in Gaberones to remain in close touch with the Red Cross and to send a member of her staff to visit the children with the Red Cross representative. The International Red Cross will do all it can to put the children in touch with their parents.
The second main question I was asked was whether there were two versions of Sunday's events. Some Conservatives have conceded that there are two versions but others have assumed, without serious argument, that there is only one version—the Rhodesian one. I should point out that there is another version—a very detailed one—which comes from our High Commission in Botswana.
I shall tell the House what we have heard from Botswana. The Rhodesian security forces kept returning to the school last year and interrogating students. The students formed an organisation among themselves with a committee and planned to leave Rhodesia. On 27th January, when they returned to school after Christmas, the security forces once again visited them, so the students resolved to leave on 30th January. Included in this group were three pastors and one teacher. They walked all night and crossed the border after dark.
The Botswana Government have interviewed individually and at random 30 of the older children and 20 younger ones. The children have also talked in groups. The abduction stories have been put to them and the children have denied them. When asked if they wanted to return to Rhodesia, and when told that they would be assisted to do so, they all said emphatically that they did not wish to go. I do not know whether this version is true. None of us knows. All I would say is that at least is seems sensible not to take a final view on either of the two versions when none of us knows which is true.
If the abduction version is true, I agree with Opposition Members that it is one of the most horrifying things done to children in history. On the other hand, if the children are refugees a different picture will emerge. It will mean that a few more hundreds are added to the thousands of refugees from Rhodesia already living in the surrounding countries.
The words "barbarous" and "totalitarian" have been used about the Botswana régime and Sir Seretse Khama. I am glad that some Opposition Members who know Botswana and Sir Seretse have given the lie to those suggestions. Botswana is one of the most democratic regimes in Southern Africa. It is also a multi-racial régime, and it represents what most of us want to see as the outcome of the Rhodesian talks.
A third point put to me has been that the Government are condoning acts of violence. We are doing no such thing. The right hon. Member for Knutsford referred rather surprisingly to the Charter of the United Nations. As far as the

United Nations is concerned, as long ago as 1965 Rhodesia was declared a threat to international peace and security by the United Nations Security Council. In the last few weeks there has been a long debate in the United Nations about incursions by Rhodesian forces into Botswana. One Conservative Member said that the Botswana Government, having no army, is in no position to control these incursions, and that is so. A lot of bitter things have been said in this debate, and I would have liked more time to answer them. Any suggestion that Conservatives have a monopoly of feeling for children, parents and families is wholly inappropriate, and it is not the best way to discover the true nature of this matter.
I have said again and again that the failure to reach a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia will unfailingly cause an escalation of violence on both sides and will step up the guerrilla war. That cannot be avoided in any circumstances. In this particular case we do not know the facts, but the most promising development is the visit of the International Red Cross to Botswana. I hope that the Red Cross will give us a neutral account of the events. If violence was involved, by whatever side, everyone in the House would deplore it, and certainly the Government would. But the basic and disagreeable fact is that, if no settlement is reached, the guerrilla war will escalate and there will be outside intervention on both sides. It is becoming more and more inevitable that violence will occur. The essential thing, if we want to avoid more incidents of this kind in the future, is to achieve a negotiated settlement. Not all the speeches made today have helped in the search for a negotiated settlement. At the end of the day this is what the Government wish to achieve, and we shall direct all our efforts to achieving it.
In the meantime, I ask the House to suspend judgment on this particular incident and wait until we have a report so that we can then make up our minds.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I ask the indulgence of the House to say a word or two before the end of this debate. The Foreign Secretary has come to the Box and given a full account with more details that we had not heard before. We


still cannot understand how he gave the response that he did to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) yesterday. It is incomprehensible. In the light of what he has just said, however, we should suspend judgment. We should wait and see the outcome of the efforts that the Foreign Secretary has belatedly undertaken. We will wait with interest to see what happens and reserve the action which we might be prepared to take until that time.

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT (NORTH-WEST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance and assistance? We are now beginning a debate on a most serious subject affecting the North-West, where there are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, particularly on Merseyside. This area has the highest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom. More than 90 hon. Members represent that area, all of whom want, or should want, to participate in the debate. Many will not have the opportunity to do so because all we have is a derisory three hours. Would it be possible to extend the period of the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It is impossible for the Chair to extend the time limit.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) will thank us for calling this debate even if is not as long as he would wish. We have done so because we think that the unemployment situation in the North-West is one of the most devastating and probably most visible aspects of the failure of the Government's policy. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wore the employment hat for the Opposition, she quoted with approval from the The Times, which stated that the situation on unemployment was then
morally, economically, socially and politically intolerable.
The figure then was 833,000. It is now two-thirds higher, and it will be interesting to hear what Labour Members say now.
I say to those hon. Members who represent other parts of the country that we are well aware of the problems that face them. Our concentration tonight on the North-West indicates no intention to belittle those problems. This is not only a question of numbers; we have called the debate because of the social and human problems that arise from unemployment and make this a suitable matter for discussion in the House. Unemployment causes a sense of depression and frustration, which settles on people. There is a loss of pride and of job satisfaction, and in the big cities the growth of unemployment is a contributory factor to the growth of vandalism, which affects not only those who are out of work but the old who live alone and are frightened. In parts of London and in the North-West unemployment is undoubtedly a contributory factor to the growth in racial tension. So, for all these reasons, it is right and proper that the House should tonight devote some time to the question of unemployment.
The North-West is a particularly worrying problem. Its share of unemployment has risen from 13·4 per cent. of the total unemployed in 1970 to 15 per cent. currently. The figures for other regions, such as North Wales and Scotland, which may be higher, are coming down. The North-West Industrial Development Association quotes other figures. Those figures show that the most revealing indicator of the seriousness of this problem is the deterioration in the relationship between unemployment numbers and the number of vacancies.
Figures show that the North-West has moved from a position similar to that of the national average in 1968—in which two people were available for every vacancy—to a position in 1976 that is worse than that of any other region, and where 18 people are unemployed for every notified vacancy. The North-West has almost twice the level for the country as a whole. It has 12 per cent. of the working population and 15 per cent. of the unemployed for the country as a whole. Industrial and capital investment is only 11·7 per cent. of that for the whole country.
The North-West has suffered a series of blows in recent years, and these are now beginning to show in terrible measure. Many hon. Members are anxious to speak in the debate, and in the interests of ensuring that, we shall try to keep our speeches short—and that includes mine. I shall simply draw attention to one or two specific matters before going wider.
It is right that in talking about the North-West we should refer to textiles. The industry is a major employer in the area, and the closure of mills continues. There were 14 closures in 1973, 17 in 1974, 35 in 1975 and 20 up to September 1976. Those are the latest figures I have, obtained from Hansard.
One important feature in the debates must be to continue the pressure on the Government to make such adjustments as they can through international agreement, and particularly on the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre arrangement in Europe, to secure some safeguard against the continuing flood of imports, which is having a devastating effect on this area.
I wish to refer to the situation at Woodford Chadderton. I am informed that unemployment in the Stockport area has risen by 12 per cent. in the last few months. It is therefore dependent on the Nimrod airborne early warning project. The preference of those in the North-West for continuing with an English rather than an American project needs no underlining. Its importance can be gauged from the fact that it is estimated that about 18,000 jobs at Hawker Siddeley may be dependent on that decision alone.
As a Manchester Member, I hope that I may be allowed to make an aside about that city. Like many other conurbations, it is suffering from the problem that affects the inner cities. We calculate that since 1959 about 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost from the city. That represents about 25 per cent. of the total of such jobs there. An analysis of the Salford and Manchester employment exchanges confirms that the figure includes a very high proportion of unskilled workers. In particular, the young are affected.
Government aid to Greater Manchester works out at £2 per head of the population, and that compares with £35 per head


for Merseyside and £43 per head for the North. This is a problem that the Government should look at. The problems of the inner cities should receive special attention in Manchester and Liverpool as well as in the other conurbations. This point is emphasised in the report from the Greater Manchester Council which emphasises that general answers are unlikely to have much immediate impact on the problem. It underlines the tremendous importance of restimulating the development of small and medium-sized firms which are likely to flourish in these areas.
There are many long-term problems which will not be solved tonight. Some have been with us for many years, and they include industrial obsolescence. It is because we suffer so much from these long-term problems that we are so vulnerable to unemployment arising directly from Government policies. The kaleidoscope of these local problems will no doubt be dealt with by the other hon. Members who take part in the debate, but it is clear that unemployment is reaching every industry and every area.
Let me give a quick resumé of the figures showing the changes in employment in the last two years. In farming and fishing, unemployment is up 700 per cent.—admittedly from a very small base. In textiles, paper and chemicals, it is up 155 per cent. In printing, clothing and similar industries, it is up 181 per cent. In metal and electrical, the rise is 96 per cent., in transport 110 per cent., in selling 196 per cent., and in clerical 92 per cent. Even managerial and professional jobs show an increase in unemployment of about 100 per cent. All parts of the North-West are suffering from this upsurge of unemployment.
It is not only concentrated, as it always has been, in Merseyside; it now afflicts places such as Blackburn, Bury, Warrington and Nelson and Colne. They have experienced increases of 200 to 300 per cent. since February 1974. Although some of them started off better than the national average, they are creeping closer to it, and in the case of Blackburn the figure has exceeded the national average. So, this is not simply a sad tale of Merseyside.
I admit freely and happily that the Government have taken some action, and

I will not knock it. When one is facing a deluge, one is silly to refuse an umbrella, even a small one. These projects are likely to stand us in good stead for the future. Projects such as the accelerated projects scheme are the best way forward, and the training schemes are desirable. But it would be silly to ignore the fact that they attempt to solve but a tiny part of the total problem and that many of the projects have problems of their own. The job creation scheme is an example. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) is here today, but he has explained some of the many points. In Greater Manchester, the job creation scheme has had severe problems in dealing with voluntary bodies—and one-third of the money in the job creation scheme is going to voluntary bodies.
I remind the Minister that although, according to the method of calculation used by the Government, the amount of money that the North-West receives from the European Fund is satisfactory, in fact it is not satisfactory when one recognises that 15½ per cent. of the unemployed are in development areas in the North-West.
The regional employment premium has been dropped, and I am glad to see it go. It was a relatively ineffective way of dealing with the problem. But the way that the scheme was dropped was rather odd. First the premium was doubled and then it was chopped. We lost just over £10 million in July and now we have lost £36 million by the abolition of the scheme in the coming year. What has affected most people has been the suddenness of its demise, and that has had a remarkable effect on some companies.
On Tuesday the Minister said that as a result of all the schemes, 220,000 jobs were created nationally. But that is about one quarter of the number of workers who have become unemployed since February 1974. We must recognise that the schemes have a marginal effect. In spite of all the work that has been done in providing jobs for youngsters, 25 per cent. of school leavers who were unemployed in August were still unemployed in January whereas we would normally expect that figure to be down to 10 per cent. or 15 per cent.
The North-West has been suffering from the results of Government policies. We have not been excluded and did not expect to be. We have seen industry starved of funds as a result of Government spending; an unfavourable attitude to profit; an irresistible urge to pile upon companies obligations that, however marvellous they might be in the golden future, are often the last straw; and policies that frequently sap the energies of management and skilled workers.
A recent North-West survey conducted by the CBI among five large companies employing a total of 53,000 people showed the importance of self-help for these industries rather than their having to rely on uncertain handouts from London or Brussels. That makes the Government approach to the profitability of companies all the more important. The survey showed that the 53,000 workers in these companies produced jobs in supporting and supplying companies for another 40,000 workers, as well as another 12,500 jobs from the money that the employees spent. Altogether, the companies produced £45 million for investment. That, surely, is where there is hope for the North-West and other parts of the country.
I now want to turn to small businesses. In the North-West they are in a special position because there is a large number of them. Eighty-seven per cent. of Manchester firms are small businesses, and they employ 35 per cent. of the work force. In Fylde, they account for 47 per cent. of the work force. The importance of these small businesses cannot be over estimated. A feature of them is that they have a better record of industrial peace than large companies. Small firms have been weighed down with a large number of problems that I do not need to enumerate, but there is one important feature that I want to draw to the Secretary of State's attention. Many small firms which would like to take on one, two or three extra people face a whole range of new problems. About 18 major employment provisions have been passed since February 1974. I shall not go through them all, but they ilnclude requirements for maternity leave, time off for other functions, and redundancy. I do not say that these are not good

things but, in the present circumstances, they act as a real drag on the ability of small companies to take a number of people off the labour market.
The situation is gloomy. It may be said that I am being unkind, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister are now making speches that are probably better received on this side of the House than by Labour Members. Perhaps we should welcome the sinner that repents. But a sinner should both repent his ways and do his penance. The repentance seems to be limited to Press gossip. The furore that has surrounded the Bullock Report has made us begin to wonder. The penance is being borne by the unemployed of the country while the people responsible are swanning on.
The argument used by the Secretary of State on Tuesday was that the wicked Tories were responsible. Let us examine that myth. When the Labour Government came to power unemployment in the North-West had been declining for about two years and then had been steady for a year with about 97,000 unemployed, that is about 3 per cent. of the total work force. By the October election, it was about the same, at 98,000. Presumably, when the Government went to the country they included in their election proposals the policies that would put unemployment right. Even if the plans were not carried out, they were there and were presented to the eager country. There was no mention then of 1·4 million unemployed. One North-West Member of Parliament showed confidence in his election address. He said:
Basically Britain is sound. We do not need panic measures like a wage freeze or high unemployment to 'cure' the problem. No one who knows the misery which unemployment has caused in Britain would be a party to restoring it as a feature of British industrial life … Britain can only emerge from its difficulties by working together which does not mean one million not working at all".
That was the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and presumably he knew what he intended to do. I know that he would have written only what he considered to be true. That was the Tory inheritance.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr.


Silvester) said that he was going to be brief.

Mr. Silvester: I am coming to an end.
Since that time, employment has risen from 100,000 to 200,000 in the North-West, and that is apart from hidden unemployment.
The Secretary of State has told us that it is all to do with external factors. His Department publishes the figures of international comparisons. The December edition shows that in the period from mid-1975, apart from Italy and perhaps France, unemployment levels in other countries have been holding or declining whereas here they have continued to rise. One cannot jump off the world. One has to deal with it as it is. The present plight of the North-West springs from the policies implemented by the Government. It is the fruit of their labours.

Mr. James Lamond: The hon. Gentleman has made an anlysis without giving any solutions. May I ask him before he finishes his speech, whether he has not omitted to mention public expenditure cuts. Surely they made some contribution to unemployment? Would not the increased cuts advocated by his party lead to more unemployment in the North-West?

Mr. Silvester: The hon. Member has failed to recognise that the difficulties that we are now discussing did not result from the recent public expenditure cuts but from the high level of public expenditure that occurred in the early years of the Labour Government. It is that which has brought about the present situation and it is a bitter harvest that the Government are about to reap.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ought to say that there is a list of 27 hon. Members who would like to speak and the debate ends at 10 o'clock.

7.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I very much welcome this opportunity to debate unemployment in a regional context. The North-West is particularly appropriate

for this purpose, having as it does 12 per cent. of the country's employees within its boundaries and 15 per cent. of our unemployed.
I should like to start on the basis of agreement with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). The level of unemployment in the North-West is totally unacceptable, and I agree with what he said about the hardship that unemployment produces. This hardship is related not only to the difference between what is in the wage packet and what is received in unemployment benefit but to the denial of the opportunity to work, which is a real deprivation for many people. When a person loses his job, he loses most of his income but he loses all his job. We are dealing with a subject that the whole House acknowledges to be a problem.
This is the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Withington speak from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate him on his contribution. It was a better balanced speech about unemployment than I have heard from many of his hon. Friends. I take him to task only for the way in which he quoted my statement that 220,000 jobs were being sustained by measures taken by my Department. The way in which he used that figure suggested that these were the only jobs sustained by Government action. It took no account of the many policies of regional support that are being operated by the Government and the many measures taken by the Department of Industry.
At a time when the House is debating the legislation associated with devolution for Scotland and Wales, it is important that Ministers should come to the Dispatch Box and demonstrate the Government's commitment to the English regions, particularly against the background of the present appalling unemployment.
If we are to debate this subject constructively, we must recognise that we are dealing with long-term structural problems of the regions as well as problems which result from the world recession. If we seek to debate it as though all the unemployment in the North-West is a product of the present recession, we shall be missing some of the essential features which must be tackled if there


is to be a long-term solution to that unemployment.
We must also recognise that within the North-West there are a number of subregional problems, including the longstanding problem of unemployment on Merseyside, which has a disproportionately high number of unemployed youngsters.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed to various factors which he believes have caused the unemployment in the North-West. Why has he so conspicuously omitted the responsibility of himself and his colleagues for the greatest job destruction programme ever undertaken by any Government? I refer specifically to the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, who said in the House 10 days ago that for every £10,000 cut from defence expenditure one job was lost. The Government have cut £1 billion from defence—the equivalent of deliberately destroying 100,000 jobs—and we in the North-West have a high proportion of the employment in defence industries. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on this situation?

Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman's concern about defence policy and his criticism of the Government have led him to ignore the fact that it is hardly possible to deploy all the causes of the unemployment in the North-West in the first four minutes of a speech. I shall be referring to others before I finish.
It is important that we recognise that a number of the industries which have been particularly hard hit by the recession have been concentrated in the North-West. There is also the problem of the inner areas of major conurbations such as Merseyside.
Under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my Department is taking part in an exercise to explore the extent to which employment policies can contribute to the solution of problems in special unemployment areas affecting the centres of a number of major conurbations. I am in close touch with this exercise because part of the problem in Merseyside can be solved only if we recognise the aspects of it which relate

to the concentration of a particular conurbation.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend said that unemployment on Merseyside was unacceptable and was causing hardship. So it is—but those words were uttered as long ago as 1974. He has told us that there are structural problems, but hon. Members from the area have been saying that for three years. There is no point in my right hon. Friend saying that he recognises the problems; we want action. The time has come for him to bring forward policies and programmes which are tailor-made to Merseyside's problems. Our regional policies have failed when firms in my constituency, despite the fact that they are making profits, choose to go elsewhere. Unless we can have a compulsory planning agreements and a proper plan for the area, we shall never solve the problem of unemployment on Merseyside.

Mr. Booth: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but in the interest of limiting my contribution—recognising how many hon. Members wish to speak —I think that I should deploy the Government's actions fairly briefly. My hon. Friend knows that I am not usually slow to give way, and if I try to press on it is not out of discourtesy to him or any other hon. Member.
I wish to outline a few of the steps that we have taken to mitigate the worst effects of the present recession and then to refer to the measures which are necessary to redress the long-term structural decline which has affected the North-West.
My Department has been working with the Manpower Services Commission in the implementation of the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme, the work experience scheme, the youth employment subsidy and the job release scheme and to bring about the most massive increase in industrial training that this country has ever known. These measures have proved to be cost-effective in providing jobs for many people who would otherwise be unemployed. The temporary employment subsidy has proved to be particularly effective in the North-West; it has already saved about 50,000 jobs.
I agree with the hon. Member for Withington that we cannot stop all the


redundancies. However, I think he will agree that but for the requirements of the Employment Protection Act that unions and the Government should be notified of major redundacies, and but for the existence of assistance such as the temporary employment subsidy, should have had even more redundancies. According to the hon. Gentleman's figures, we are stopping one redundancy in four. The situation would be a lot worse if we were not stopping those. We have to stop a great many more.
The temporary employment subsidy has had the greatest effect in the North-West, with its particular industrial problems, and 8,000 jobs on Merseyside have been saved by the subsidy. The special measures which my Department operates, excluding any support for training in industry or TOPS—the training opportunities scheme—have helped 68,000 people in the North-West at a cost of £66 million.
The training schemes which the Government are operating in the North-West through the Training Services Agency have raised the numbers trained under TOPS from 10,600 in 1975, a historic level, to 13,576. I believe that we have to raise the number even further during this year. This massive support for training, particularly in industry, which is being worked out through the industrial training board at a cost of £55 million a year, is sustaining a level of intake of apprentices and of people to many other forms of vocational training in industry, which during a recession is a unique experience. In all previous recessions the level of intake for training in industry has dropped, and this has a part to play in the problems of the North-West. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal in detail with the effect of many of these special measures when he replies.
I shall deal quickly with the question of the industrial strategy for the North-West. It is in this area that the effectiveness of policies for dealing with the structural problems of the North-West must lie.

Mr. Churchill: Nimrod.

Mr. Booth: Many hon. Members, when talking about the structural problems of the North-West, have urged upon

me and my colleagues the importance of greater investment in industry, of bringing more manufacturing industry into the North-West and of getting more factories, more new firms and better capital equipment for the firms already in the North-West.
First, I shall deal with two major components of this industrial strategy—the accelerated capital projects scheme and the special industries scheme. Under the accelerated capital projects scheme, operated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, some £8 million worth of assistance has so far been approved for projects in the North-West. This brings forward investment programmes totalling £60 million. It is by this form of support that we can advance the investment plans and make it possible for firms in the area to advance their investment plans, so that the North-West can be in a better position to compete for industrial orders.
About 35 firms in the North-West have benefited substantially from the ferrous foundry scheme and the machine tools scheme. Under the foundry scheme more than £900,000 is to be spent on 11 projects already approved, involving altogether—taking the contribution that the firms are making—investment of more than £4 million. This is a major contribution to the regeneration of industry in the North-West.
The hon. Member for Withington rightly and understandably raised the problem of the textile industry. He conceded the importance of the negotiations which take place internationally on matters of employment and of trade between us and other countries. Here also the Government have given considerable help to the textile industry, an industry which is vitally important to the North-West. The Government are providing up to £15 million to the clothing industry to raise productivity by modernisation and re-equipment and are providing a further £5 million under a new scheme to help the wool textile industry.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to give the figures of take-up for the amount that is available?

Mr. Booth: The figures which I quoted anticipate full take-up both of the £15


million for the clothing industry and of the £5 million for the wool textile industry. I shall deal later with money on offer as opposed to take-up. I agree that it is an important consideration.
Going round the North-West, and as one who was a North-West Member until local government reform forced me out of Lancashire and into Cumbria—

Mr. Churchill: It was the electorate.

Mr. Booth: It was local government reform.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Secretary of State realise that the scope of this debate on the North-West embraces Cumbria, where he and I have constituencies? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page) is anxious to put the same point. When the Secretary of State talks about the problems of the clothing industry—I include the boot and shoe industry—and about the regeneration of that industry, does he realise the serious damage which has been done by the precipitate abandonment of the regional employment premium? I am thinking of a firm which operates in my constituency and that of the Secretary of State where investment plans and budgets have gone haywire by the short-notice abandonment of the regional employment premium.

Mr. Booth: There are still purposes for which Cumbria is considered the North-West, but in the regional boundaries set out by the Department of the Environment the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine are now in the Northern Region.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you agree that as the subject of this debate is the North-West—it does not refer to the North-West Region or regional planning area—any discussion on problems in Cumbria, which is in the North-West, is entirely in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the debate is on a motion for the Adjournment, I have no method of curtailing the right hon. Gentleman in his observations.

Mr. Booth: I am not seeking to avoid the hon. Gentleman's point, I assure him. My hon. Friend the Minister of State when replying to the debate wants to deal in part with this question. I am aware of the problem of the firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It also has a factory in my constituency. I have met representatives of the union and of the management of the firm concerned to talk about the problems arising from the withdrawal of the premium.
The payment of the regional employment premium in two parts of the North-West—I use the hon. Gentleman's geographical definition—has not prevented major redundancies being declared. It has, therefore, been necessary to bring to bear on those areas, irrespective of whether the premium was available, measures such as the temporary employment subsidy and the special industrial support which I am indicating as a way of aiding those firms through the recession.
The whole of the North-West is an assisted area, based on the boundaries used by the Department of the Environment. Although regional policy is inevitably less effective in drawing new industry into assisted areas in a time of recession when there is not much footloose industry about, nevertheless the regional incentives available in the North-West are playing a major rôle in helping to sustain and safeguard employment opportunities there.
More than £47 million has been paid out in the form of regional development grants to the North-West in the last financial year. In addition to the regional development grants, up to the end of December last year—here I make the distinction that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) raised —offers of assistance have been made for projects in the region with a total cost exceeding £387 million, and it is estimated that if they are taken up some 40,000 new jobs will eventually be provided. The offers to Merseyside alone, if taken up, would create 9,000 new jobs. Under the heading of regional aid, the North-West has also benefited from the advance factory programme. Since July 1974 nine advance factories have been completed, and a further 18 are under construction.
Part of the Government's regional policy has been the dispersal of Civil Service posts to the regions. Following the Hardman Report, nearly 4,500 posts are to be located in the North-West. The massive help which the Government have given to the North-West needs to be seen against the background of the considerable changes which are taking place in the structure of employment in the region.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the Minister agree that the solution to the problem of unemployment in the North-West lies not in costly temporary subsidies and grants but in the rejuvenation of private, profitable industry, which alone can save the North-West and the country from economic degeneration?

Mr. Booth: I agree that the total solution does not lie in temporary grants and subsidies related to a recessional situation. But if the Government were to sit back and wait for private investors to come forward to finance the regeneration of industry in the North-West, we would face an even bleaker prospect than the one we are debating.
I want to impress upon the House that whatever policies we advocate for dealing with the problem must be seen against the changes which are taking place in the structure of employment in the country as a whole, and particularly in regions which are heavily dependent upon manufacturing industry for employment. The North-West depends for 40 per cent. of its employment on manufacturing industry, compared with the Great Britain average of about one-third. Therefore, the extent to which any strategy or policy attracts or brings about investment in our manufacturing industry will have a substantially different bearing on the take-up of jobs compared with the situation a decade ago because manufacturing industry is becoming more and more capital-intensive.
Some industries could increase their output considerably by the adoption of new capital-intensive methods of production without increasing jobs in manufacturing industry in the region. But that is no reason for not going for more manufacturing industry in the North-West. Far from it. Indeed, it is a reason for recognising that proper manpower and employment policies will have to take that factor into account.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the textile industry has a fine record of investment and innovation but that the Government—perhaps successive Governments, but certainly the present Government—have failed to bring in satisfactory anti-dumping legislation to enable this good industry which is a substantial employer in the North-West, to provide the employment which is so desperately required?

Mr. Booth: I have already acknowledged that the problem with the textile industry is not merely one of investment. In this context, international discussions which must take place under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and other arrangements which will control or adjust the flow of trade have an important part to play. I do not want to debate that issue now. I want to stay with the effect which capital-intensive manufacturing industry will have on future employment in the North-West.
I take as an example the decision announced on Friday by ICI to invest £25 million on a new PVC plant at Hillhouse near Blackpool. That decision to construct a plant which will come on stream in 1979 and increase the ICI's capacity to 350,000 tons a year is a welcome piece of news for that area in terms of its industrial development. But how many jobs will it bring about?

Mr. James Lomond: Ninety.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend is right. The investment of £25 million will result in 90 permanent jobs, and some of those 90 jobs will go to workers in other ICI plants which are being closed.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman now arguing that the Government ought to be considering the point which has been made in previous debates—namely, not full employment but full production and the social consequences which flow, such as a reduction in the working week or in the retirement age for men?

Mr. Booth: Certainly, on the argument that I am putting forward about the capital-intensive nature of British industry, if we are to have the highest investment levels and equipment to enable us to be competitive in world markets, one option is to reduce working hours. to introduce


earlier retirement or to keep young people at school longer. That is one component. As representatives of the North-West, however, we would not claim that that was the first priority. Would we not claim that the additional wealth created by that capital-intensive manufacturing industry should find its way to providing the region with the schools, the hospitals, the houses and the social furniture which is so necessary to the improvement of the quality of life in the region? But that does not rule out the option. That is part of it.
There are other priorities. One of the major political questions facing us is how we should transfer some of the additional wealth created to achieve our social objectives.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely my right hon. Friend is arguing that the time has come for a reversal of Government policy. What he is saying is that we must concentrate on developing work in the construction industry and on using the investment not to decrease the numbers of workers involved in the industry but to build houses, schools and so on. That is precisely what some of us have been arguing for a long time.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend runs ahead of me. If we are to achieve an industrial performance which will enable us to pay our way as a country and get rid of the limitations on Government budgeting which flow from the necessity to redress our balance of payments deficit, we must have a better investment structure in our industry. Having done that, we shall then make the wealth available for use in the way described by my hon. Friend. We cannot spend money on socially desirable objectives before the wealth has been created. I contend that nowhere is that more important than in the North-West. The success of industrial strategy there offers more towards ensuring prosperity and growth of the region in the longer term than possibly in many other places. What I am saying clearly has implications for manpower policy.

Mr. George Rodgers: This is a most interesting part of my right hon. Friend's speech. Does he concede that the policy of draining workers from

the public sector on the pretext that they are required in manufacturing industry is contradicted by the theory he has just advanced?

Mr. Booth: On the theory which I am advancing, in a period when the right kind of investment policy is running in manufacturing industry, one cannot justify taking people from the public sector merely to man industry. I agree with my hon. Friend.
I was going on to say that what I am arguing has tremendous implications for manpower policy. It raises possibilities of enormous transitional problems. The deputations which come to see me at the Department of Employment make it clear that people in the North-West and other regions heavily afflicted by unemployment are increasingly looking towards the Government to provide answers to some of the problems.
If we are to bring about the restructuring of industry which is necessary for growth in the North-West, certain prerequisites are essential. First, we have to minimise the disruption and hardship which many people experience during periods of industrial change. This means matching job growth in certain areas to job losses in those areas. It calls for a much more sophisticated manpower planing capability than has previously existed in this country, and a much closer partnership between Government and industry. I believe that this is now emerging.
It was clear in the discussions which we had on Wednesday at the National Economic Development Council that in 40 sectors of British industry, covering 15 per cent. of its employees, representatives of trade unions had sat down with representatives of management to assess the possibilities in their own sectors for investment programmes and increased market shares. This shows that there is a possibility of developing the sort of policies which will make the restructuring of our industry possible.
Obviously we have a long way to go, but significant steps have been taken by the Government, including steps under the Industry Act 1975 to increase the powers of the Government to develop regional policy. The creation of the National Enterprise Board and the provision of very substantial funds to the NEB for the regeneration of industry is


part of the solution. The Employment Protection Act, as a basis for improving industrial relations, can also play a part in the success of our industry. Certainly, the funding of the Manpower Services Commission to strengthen and accelerate training programmes was the only way to safeguard the opportunities on which we shall depend in future for skilled labour.
It would be ridiculous to pretend that we have anything but an awfully long way to go to deal with the fundamental structural imbalance in the region. But a start has been made in building that framework and creating the relationships which are necessary for a long-term solution.
Unemployment is a cancer in civilised society. The North-West has a great part to play in the eradication of unemployment, from which it will reap major benefit.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Opposition for giving us an opportunity to debate this important matter. As I am the first Back Bencher on the Opposition side to speak in the debate, I should like at once to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on his first speech from the Front Bench. I propose to be very brief, so I shall restrict my remarks to the perspective of my own constituency.
The national unemployment figure is very nearly 1,400,000, which is about 6 per cent. That is bad enough, but I often wonder what Labour Members would say if that figure had been reached under a Conservative Government. The unemployment rate in the North-West—7·2 per cent.—is worse still, but in that part of my consetituency which is within the Runcorn and Widnes travel-to-work area the figure is 8·9 per cent. That figure means that today there are 2,308 men and women out of work in Runcorn, which is an increase on the figure of three months ago. Against that there are only 86 unfilled vacancies.
It is a grim and depressing picture. If we compare it with the situation that the Labour Government inherited in 1974, we find that, when Labour took office in the aftermath of the three-day working week the number of people out of work

in my constituency was not 2,308 but only 839. The unemployment rate was not 8·9 per cent.; it was 3·8 per cent. Of course, I accept that the rise in unemployment is not entirely the fault of this Government, but I believe that the vast increase in unemployment that we have seen in the North-West and the figures in themselves are an indictment of the failure of the Government's economic policies.
The current level of unemployment has killed for all time the myth so widely promoted by members of the Labour Party, particularly Labour Members below the Gangway, that in some way the Conservative Party is a party that stands for high unemployment while the Labour Party stands for full employment. The facts prove that that is just not true. I do not believe that anybody on either side of the House wishes to see any of his fellow men or women out of work, or the consequences that flow from unemployment.
What we have seen over the past three years has put an end to another myth which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) was promoting this afternoon, namely, the claim that the policies put forward by the Opposition for a reduction in central and local government expenditure lead to increases in unemployment. The Secretary of State must face the fact that the increase in unemployment over the past three years has coincided with a period during which we have seen enormous increases in public spending. All the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave, when he told us about additional money being provided for various projects, show that the money is not providing more jobs. It is being spent at a time when unemployment is going up.
There will not be any real reduction in the level of unemployment unless we change the financial and economic climate in which industry, and particularly small industry, is working. We have been taking too much out of the economy for public spending by central and local government, and we have left too little for industry to invest. We have imposed too high a rate of taxation and have allowed insufficient opportunities for expansion. All this has created a climate that is totally counter-productive to providing more employment.
No one decries what the Secretary of State says about such projects as job creation schemes. They are necessary, but they are palliatives, and very small palliatives at that. We must change the climate generally and give encouragement to industry. That means restoring incentives, reducing taxation on companies, and changing the whole mentality that was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he talked of "taxing people till the pips squeak". That attitude has done immense harm and is reflected in the loss of jobs that we see today.
I turn now to a matter that affects my constituency directly. Runcorn is an expanding and very successful new town, which has recently been compared to the new town of Skelmersdale, represented by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). The basic difference between the two new towns is that Runcorn has been more successful in having a diversification of industry and in being less dependent on individual substantial employers.
I believe that Runcorn has advantages for the further development of industry, and I pay tribute to the way in which the development corporation has encouraged employers to come to the town. I have heard high praise for the corporation from those who have been attracted there. The diversity of small businesses in Runcorn has avoided the problems that face Skelmersdale.
In the North-West we shall have to rely largely on small businesses in future to take up the slack in unemployment. The message that the small businesses want to put to the Government is that the welter of legislation that has been passed—however admirable individual pieces of it may be said to be—has put a burden on them that is a disincentive to expansion. Their message to the Government would be "Get off our backs and let us do our own work".

7.59 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in what was an interesting and absorbing speech, in some parts, gave a list of the measures that the Government have taken in attempting to stem

rising unemployment. It was a formidable list, and it was good that we heard it, because sometimes we tend to forget how much has been done by the Government not only in this field but in many others.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energy with which he has tackled this job and I sympathise with him in having to try to bring employment not only to the North-West but to all parts of the country. The harsh reality is that despite all the commendable efforts of this Government, at the end of the day we shall be faced with more unemployment than we had two or three years ago.
All hon. Members must consider the situation in their own constituencies. In the Oldham and Chadderton area 4,000 people are wholly unemployed. That does not sound many compared with the astronomical figure for the whole country, but for 4,000 people this is a difficult time. Between 2,500 and 3,000 more people are unemployed than when I first became a Member of the House. I take my responsibility for the situation. I do not place all the blame on the Government. I have to answer to the constituents who returned me to the House.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), who opened the debate, discussed the brief that was issued by the Greater Manchester Council, but he chose a paragraph that illustrated his argument, and there is no doubt that it makes a powerful case for the North-West.
Manufacturing jobs fell by one-quarter in the 13 years from 1959 to 1972. That is an enormous reduction, which I hardly believed when I read it. Some of those jobs have been taken up by the expansion in the service industries. However, in the Greater Manchester area there are still 100,000 fewer jobs than there were in 1959. The Greater Manchester area has received considerably less help from the Government than other areas, including areas in the North-West.
Wages in the Greater Manchester area are £5 a week less than the national average. That is important for the whole community, because low wages produce unemployment in the service industries.
The solution that hon. Members often put forward is that we need more investment. They say that as if investment will


create more jobs. We must look more carefully at that. The Secretary of State used the example that I intended to use. I read of it in the Financial Times last Friday. Apparently ICI proposes to invest £25 million in a plant near Blackpool. But that investment will create only 90 jobs in that plant, some of which will be filled by workers from another area. That investment represents almost £300,000 per job created. That is not an extreme example. Honourable Members who attended the debates on accelerated investment grants will remember that the Government advanced £10 million towards a development and investment scheme worth £100 million and that the number of jobs to be provided was infinitesimal.
The cost of jobs is running into millions in the chemical industry, because it is the most capital-intensive industry. The textile industry in the North-West has moved from being a labour-intensive industry to being capital intensive. The number of people employed in that industry has fallen to 10 per cent. of what it was when 750,000 people were employed in it, in the early 1920s. That is a drop of 90 per cent. in one industry.
We cannot expect that jobs will be provided merely by investing in industry. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) have done some research, which has been published in The Guardian. After reading those excellent articles I am satisfied that additional investment does not guarantee additional jobs.
We must look closely at the argument of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). That is because, if there are 1½ million people unemployed now and, in the short-term, a further 1½ million are coming on to the market, we shall not be able to absorb all of them into the work force. There will be improved output from investment, but we must use the wealth created by that not only to expand social services and housing, and to improve the situation in the construction industry; we must examine the length of the working week, the length of holidays and retirement age.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse the observations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) about the textile industry, but is he not being

unnecessarily critical of ICI? Surely that organisation must be considered to be one of the most progressive and enlightened employers in the country. It pays vast sums of money to the Government—money that could be used to provide the improvements that the hon. Member seeks.

Mr. Lamond: I welcome that intervention because it gives me an opportunity to say that I am not in any way critical of ICI. I welcome its initiative and I wish that we had many more firms like it. I was not being critical of its investment; I was using its investment in a particular plant as an illustration.
The textile industry is passing through a difficult period. Its support campaign, which is based in my constituency, has produced a pamphlet setting out its attitude on the Multi-Fibre Arrangement negotiations. New arrangements must be introduced by the end of this year to replace those which came into operation in January 1975. Changes in the world economic situation have occurred since then.
I hope that the Government and hon. Members will read the pamphlet. It sets out a reasonable attitude towards the arrangements. We want to protect the textile industry from unfair competition. We not only want to protect it against dumping, although that is important; we want proper limits set to the volume of imports. The problem concerns not Britain alone but almost every country within the EEC. EEC countries have changed from being net exporters, particularly of textiles, to being net importers. That is why attention is being focused on the new arrangement, not merely in this country but in the other eight member States. The Government must take a tough line in these negotiations and not be diverted by the attitude of the United States. Motives could be ascribed to the United States that are not acceptable to people in the textile industry in this country.
I hope that nothing said in this debate will damage the prospects of the North-West. There are opportunities there for new enterprises. My constituency, amongst other places has moved from being heavily dependent on textiles to being highly diversified. I welcome that change. Fibrocell, a small firm that


started six or seven years ago in my constituency making sailing boats, is now one of the largest producers of this type of boat in the United Kingdom. Textile machinery firms are doing well, and are expanding their exports. There was a talk on the radio this morning about the prospects for these firms. Engineering, which in the North-West is almost as important as textiles, has in the past six months had a 22 per cent. increase in its profits.
These are things on the credit side that must not be forgotten in this debate. Let us not paint the picture too black. If we want to attract industry to the North-West, we must make it clear that our industrial relations are first-class. The opportunity is there to expand. Local authorities and the Government will give every encouragement to people who want to come to the North-West. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do their utmost to encourage anyone who shows an interest in bringing employment to our area.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: No one can exaggerate the present extent of unemployment in Merseyside. The Secretary of State called it a cancer. In Merseyside it is a cancer well developed. Unemployment is unacceptable and intolerable. Those words roll easily off the tongue. What sometimes happens with this Government is that the temporary palliatives which we are given disguise the roots of the real problems.
The extent of our present unemployment—11 per cent. in the Liverpool travel-to-work area—is very depressing indeed. What is more depressing is the way in which certain major industries in Merseyside seem to be facing a critical stage, which if it becomes more critical could result in a very serious fundamental increase in our structural problems.
In my constituency in North Wirral the stark facts of unemployment make horrifying reading. In North Wirral alone there are at present 13,876 unemployed and only 313 vacancies. In the small community of Neston there are 380 unemployed. In certain parts of my constituency—in the Ford estate in Birkenhead—unemployment is now reaching 30 per cent. If there is unemployment of

30 per cent. within a community, there is a social problem which is not merely a cancer which cannot be easily removed but is something which will cause fundamental social problems for many years to come.
In Birkenhead there are 7,000 unemployed. Those to whom I have spoken in the Department of Employment throughout my constituency tell me that they are concerned that this year will see an enormous increase in the number of unemployed school leavers. Because of the small number of vacancies, there will be no jobs for them to go to and they will leave school and go straight on to the dole.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the job creation programme, which sucked young people into artificially created jobs, is now throwing them out on to the streets again, and is he aware of the serious damage that that is doing?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has researched this matter considerably. One of the worrying factors is that many employment exchange managers who see the whole problem within the area recognise that the job creation programme and the training schemes will throw back a pool of young unemployed and make the situation even worse.
I want to suggest three things in the limited time available to me. First, it is on small businesses, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, that the survival of Merseyside can so easily depend. There has been a £1 billion increase in national insurance contributions—an increase of 23 per cent. We have seen also the hasty removal of the regional employment premium. As the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in a note to all Merseyside Members of Parliament,
The REP for even a small manufacturing firm with 40 employees would be over £5,000 per annum.
This is a not insignificant sum to be withdrawn at 14 days' notice which firms will have to find out of reserves.
Those are firms which are suffering to some extent also from the serious problem of having entered into contracts on costings which took the REP into account.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that these contributions which the firms have to make are the cause of unemployment? It is well known that in the United States, where there are no such contributions, the unemployment rate is much higher.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I put a slightly different point to the hon. Gentleman? Will he please liaise with his Front Bench, because the spokesman on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), said that the removal of REP made very little difference?

Mr. Hunt: To answer that latter point first, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has an adjectival indifference, because I spoke of the "hasty" removal of regional employment premium. I mentioned the figure of 14 days. Many firms had accepted that it was a temporary measure and that it would soon be phased out because the Government had indicated that that was their policy. I am saying that its withdrawal at 14 days' notice causes a liquidity problem.
To take up the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), I am saying that national insurance contributions deter a small business man from taking on more people because he has more overheads to pay. There are many small businesses in my constituency—in Birkenhead, in Hoylake and in other parts of the constituency—which would like to take on more people but are deterred from so doing by the sheer weight of contributions. If only the Government would recognise that their penal policy towards small businesses is having this detrimental effect, we should see a take-up in the private sector and an increase in the number of vacancies.
Secondly, regional policy under the present Socialist Government must be seen to have failed. The Chairman of Merseyside County Council said at a recent meeting that all that the special development area policy did was to reassure those who were suffering while the fundamental problems continued. I agree with him. We need a fundamental re-think of regional policy.
Thirdly and lastly, I plead in this Chamber for an all-party approach to

unemployment. I also plead for a far more effective lobby of Merseyside Members of Parliament. I have been a Member of this place for a comparatively short time, but one of the things I have heard time and time again is that Merseyside does not have an effective and strong lobby of Members of Parliament. That is what we need. We should be pressing for attention to be given to the special problems of Merseyside at the highest possible level.
I welcomed the remarks of the Secretary of State for Employment and I welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of a representative of the Department of the Environment. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he was considering the special problems of inner city areas with Ministers in the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has talked about a lobby from Merseyside. He must be aware that SDA status was gained during the Government's early life. As a matter of fact, I was the Minister responsible. Many other efforts were made to bring in new factories, for example. In that sense a great deal has been done by the efforts of Members of this place. This is not only a Merseyside problem. The problem goes far deeper than that.

Mr. Hunt: I shall always pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman when it is deserved. On Merseyside today we have a problem that recently caused the hon. Gentleman to explode. Indeed, it has caused a great many others to explode. Surely we cannot ignore the fact that Merseyside has special problems and needs special solutions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that at the highest possible level—this can come only from the Prime Minister—there should be an initiative to provide the special solutions that Merseyside so urgently needs. That initiative can come only from the Prime Minister, because it is necessary for the Secretaries of State for Employment, for Trade, for Industry and for the Environment and the other major Ministries to co-ordinate their policies so as to provide the special solutions that Merseyside needs.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Thomas Williams: No one who has listened to the debate can feel anything but sympathy for the


problems that the Government face or any other Government would face in the conflict between unemployment and inflation. Yet the debate, despite the intesting things that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us about what is being done, for which tribute is properly to be paid to the Government, will cause a sense of deep depression.
The employment situation has been considered by all those who have spoken so far largely from the point of view of the past two, three or four years. The truth is that for 50 years and more the economy has been drifting steadily and inexorably to the situation in which we now find ourselves. I believe it was a former Conservative Prime Minister who said that apart from 1945 to 1950 this country has consistently been badly governed. During the greater part of my lifetime I have listened to Minister after Minister and economist after economist saying virtually the same thing when faced with the problem of unemployment.
They have said that unemployment is unendurable, that it is at an unacceptable level and that we must do something about it. For the greater part of my childhood and youth I lived in a home where my father had 28 shilling a week with which to keep six people. Not only us; nearly everyone in the town in which I lived faced the same situation while Ministers and Members of Parliament kept saying "Unemployment is unendurable. It is impossible that people should be expected to live in such conditions." That was said increasingly about conditions in the North-West, the North-East and the north of England and about South Wales, but we stayed impoverished, bitter and idle.
Now we are being told again that unemployment is unendurable and that it is impossible that people should be left to live in the conditions in which so many millions are now living—including the unemployed themselves, their families and those who are disabled. In the North-West there is a desperate need for housing in every part of the region, not least in my constituency. There is a desperate need for hospitals and new schools. At the same time the region has major unemployment, especially among those who would be best able to supply the region's needs.
In my constituency, in the North-West and in many other parts of the country, we have overcrowded school classes —and unemployed teachers. We now have the added misfortune that training colleges for teachers are closing down. There is the threatened closure of one of our own local colleges—namely, Padgate.
In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that young people were being schooled for the dole. Whatever the other problems may be of any Government, that of unemployment must certainly be paramount in the minds of those who sit on these Benches. A Government can claim to have succeeded if they say not only that they cannot tolerate the measure of unemployment that we now suffer in the North-West—but that they will not tolerate it.
It was true probably more literally than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science intended when she said that young people were now being schooled for the dole. The present position in the North-West though this is but a microcosm of the problem that we face throughout the country, is exemplified in my own constituency, for instance, which now has the largest number of unemployed school leavers in its history.
During the last recess I spent a good deal of time meeting the employers of large industrial undertakings in my constituency. I was told by almost each employer not only that they were not taking any more apprentices but that in the foreseeable future they could not see how it would be possible for them to increase the number of apprentices in their employ. Surely this is to eat our seed corn.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I take up the tragic statement that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. Why are employers not taking apprentices? I should like to know why they will not take them now.

Sir T. Williams: The simple reason is that for many years the steel industry in particular, which is the largest industry in my area, has been consistently running down. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) once said that he had made every attempt to ensure that


the industry was encouraged to develop and invest—by encouraging investment which did not take place for all his encouragement after his "lame duck" policy, which had also failed. Over the past 40–50 years the development of industry and investment has been consistently neglected. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Over the modern history of our country we have continually been faced with the problem of soaring unemployment. I am deeply concerned about the matter and about the individual problems that result. Expedient after expedient has been used, and we are still trying expedients. The time has come for a genuine and comprehensive plan for dealing with unemployment, not solving our problems as they arise but looking at the long term. We need a public works programme. We need a new scale of values when it comes to the apportionment of public expenditure. We need to tell the people with a clarion call that they should make sacrifices in the interests of winning the war against unemployment.

Mr. Steen: The hon. and learned Gentleman has painted most vividly the tragic plight of young people in his constituency. Does he agree that it is more important for them to do something rather than nothing? If so, as he has mentioned public works, does he agree that doing work for the benefit of others in the community is much more important for the future life of those young people than simply doing nothing on the dole?

Sir T. Williams: I agree that it is more important that they should do something rather than nothing, but it is even more important that the something should be something that gives them hope for the future, for their future and the future of our country. What we need supremely for young people is some kind of national apprenticeship scheme so that their abilities may be used and they may look forward to the future with real hope.
I have long since become weary of hearing from those who have it within their power to deal with it that unemployment is unendurable and intolerable. The choice that must be made between inflation and unemployment is a difficult

and bitter one. I believe that it must come down on the side of ensuring that the people of this country can live with decency and dignity. If the present Government in the end fail to achieve that, although in my view any alternative Government would be worse, the people may in their bitterness dismiss the Government whom in the beginning they elected with so much hope.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Bearing in mind how much time we have spent on Wales and Scotland, I am glad that the North-West is having a bit of a do. I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for Employment for being present throughout the debate so far. I have taken part in a number of debates on the North-West since I entered the House four years ago, and I remember only one when a member of the Cabinet was present throughout the debate.
There are many aspects of unemployment in the North-West about which one could speak, but time forbids. The general economic depression has created unemployment problems all over the country, and not least in the North-West. The fishing industry in the North-West, in the Fleetwood and Fylde area, has been affected by the Icelandic fishing limits. The textile industry has been bled by successive Governments over the years. If one names any problems associated with unemployment, one finds that they have affected parts of the North-West.
We could fill the whole debate with speeches about the textile industry alone. Government after Government have promised aid to the industry. I was interested to read in the national Press not long ago that the official Opposition had sent some hon. Members to the North-West to meet textile employers and investigate the industry, so that the Opposition could recommend what they would do for the industry. The textile workers of the North-West wonder what the Conservatives did when they had the opportunity from the 1960s onwards. I led a deputation of Lancashire mayors to the Board of Trade on this matter in the 1960s, and Government after Government did nothing. Surely by now the Conservative Party should have decided its policy on textiles and should not need


a committee of investigation to discover what is wrong.
The textile workers in the North-West should no longer be kidded and strung along by Government utterances and the setting up of committees. They want jobs. I remind the House that since 1973 100,000 jobs have been lost in the North-West.
We must examine the question of import controls and import duties. Other countries appear to be able to impose import duties and control the flow of textiles into their areas. I have tabled Parliamentary Questions on this matter and have tabulated all the controls and duties in respect of imports imposed by other countries, but we appear to be unable to do anything in that regard. We are now negotiating a new Multi-Fibre Arrangement. I join the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) in hoping that the Government will ensure that the EEC negotiators stand firm in those negotiations.
Mention has been made of the document "Stop the Flood!". We are calling for maximum permitted levels for all imports and the establishment of global quotas. We also wish to relate the level of imports in any year to the state of the market, to permit unilateral restraints, including safeguard clauses, and to use more realistic base periods when establishing quota levels. I hope that the Government will take note of that document and ensure that this time the textile industry is not ratted on, as it has been by many Governments in the past 15 or 20 years.
There are many other matters, apart from textiles, that should be mentioned in this debate. Perhaps I may throw out a few ideas that are not controversial but are worth mentioning, if only to excite some Government thinking.
I should like to advance the suggestion that Preston Docks could be used as a fish farm to replace some of the fishing areas. I understand that BP might be interested in that possibility. That suggestion might be examined by the Government.
There is also the possibility of designating Fleetwood as a disaster area because of the effects of the Icelandic situation.

I should also like to mention the proposed Central Lancashire New Town and the need for a speedy conclusion to all the discussions that have been taking place over many months about the future of that project. I hope that the scheme will be dropped, but let us at least put an end to all the uncertainty. There will be little investment in the area while uncertainty remains. I hope that we shall have a quick decision on the subject.
Some of my colleagues in Liverpool—and I know that many Labour Members subscribe to this view—have suggested that that city should become a free port. I shall not enter into the argument on that matter, because I am not an expert on ports. However, I understand that the ports of Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Hamburg and Stockholm are free ports, and therefore it would be worth examining whether Liverpool could be so designated.
I should like to put forward the idea that special tax advantages should be given to firms that are prepared to invest in the Merseyside area. There are one or two anomalies to be examined. Wrexham is nearer to the Midlands than is Liverpool, but because Wrexham is deemed to be in Wales it is able to benefit from the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I believe that the question of tax incentives to investors in the Liverpool area should be carefully examined.
The Government should also examine the question of Government offices in the North-West. We welcome the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission is coming to Manchester and that the Land Registry is to be established in the Wirral. More of these offices are needed. Certainly we ought to think of the transfer of the office of the Government Chemist to West Cumbria.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is the hon. Member prepared to agree that, despite the hundreds and thousands of administrative jobs that have been directed all over the country not one has gone to North-East Lancashire? He may have noticed that Bill Kendall has now taken the view that no more Civil Service jobs are to be dispersed in this way. Will the hon. Member use his influence in Rochdale and join with other towns in North-East Lancashire in persuading the


Government to direct more such jobs to that area and persuading Bill Kendall to see what we have to offer?

Mr. Smith: I am certainly prepared to lend any help that I can. The Minister for the Civil Service visited my constituency recently, with a view to exploring the possibilities of job dispersal. I make that point so that it shall not be overlooked.
Hon. Members have referred to training. I have already said in earlier employment debates that we ought to make much greater use of our technical colleges. I constantly stress this, because I know something about technical colleges. I was a governor of one for 20 years. Their training facilities are used for an extremely limited period, not only of the week but of the year. Some of the best engineering workshops in the country are in technical colleges. It is scandalous that they should stand empty for so long. I hope that the Departments of Education and Science and Employment will get together to make sure that we make the best use of this facility.
We have also to examine the question of development area and intermediate area status. Over the weekend I heard of one company that was leaving Salford because that town did not have the development area status of the town to which the company was moving. If we are to continue with these development and intermediate areas there ought to be a review of the boundaries.
The footwear industry is now facing quite unreasonable competition not only from behind the Iron Curtain but from South America. I gather that some sort of Government subsidy in these countries is being applied to assist the industry. The textiles, footwear and fishing industries in this country appear to be a soft touch.
The modern building components industry has a high export potential. In the North-West, firms manufacturing building components have banded together in the Building Component Manufacturers' Association. The total export turnover of these firms is in excess of £1 billion a year. The Association feels that its members are gravely handicapped when competing for export orders, because of the much greater

amount of assistance that their overseas competitors are receiving from their respective Governments. The Governments of Scandinavia, Eire and other EEC countries make our Government's contribution look rather feeble. I am told that many of these other Governments pay the cost of consultants' fees in advising customers and provide cheap air travel for export personnel. These Governments are far more liberal than ours in granting tax allowances to persons employed in the industry.
I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) said about the construction industry. In an earlier intervention I spoke of full production, as opposed to full employment. The Secretary of State pointed out that we want schools, hospitals and factories. The point he was making, which I understand and recognise, was that even with a reduced labour force we produce extra wealth. With the extra wealth we have to do something about reducing the labour force required in the economy. That can be done in a number of ways.
The Minister put forward suggestions, such as raising the school leaving age, reducing the age of retirement and reducing the working week. Those proposals form one possibility. The other possibility is to create extra work in the construction and other industries. I agree that the latter would have priority over the former. I do not think that in the long term we should lose sight of the need to improve benefits to employees as a consequence of increased wealth.
The joke is not funny any longer, so I will not call myself a small employer, but as an employer with a small business I must tell my hon. Friends that it is rubbish to talk as though the national insurance stamp influenced employers in taking on labour. I employ about 70 people. Neither I, nor, I am sure, any other employer, considers whether the national insurance stamp is £1·50 or £2 in deciding whether to take someone on. The profit motive and so on are important, but what really matters is the opportunity to sell and to get orders. Schemes like the temporary employment subsidy and the job creation programme are excellent, but after a while one runs out of work for people taken on under them. There is a limit to how many


windows there are to paint, for example, One simply runs out of work.
The true way in which to get industry going is to get into a situation in which there are orders and things to make and sell. I believe that most people are motivated by selfishness. I do not say that in a nasty spirit. We are able to control it, because we are civilised. But it is so. Therefore, individual incentives matter. They matter to middle management, which is vital. Whether the economy be Communist, Marxist, Socialist or free enterprise, middle management is vital, and it is therefore important that it should be given incentives in the next round of wage negotiations.
For some months I have taken the view that the Government were not off course in their economic and industrial strategy. That is why, for the last six months, I have constantly refused to go into the Lobby against that strategy. I believe that the Government have got their priorities right. They are pushing for more investment in industry, and I hope that the next step will be to encourage industry even further by allowing it some incentive, because, in the end, financial incentive is what matters to people, whether they be directors, manual workers or middle managers.
Other things have to be done first, but as soon as the economy allows—and I believe that that time is not far off—we must take certain steps, such as tax concessions and a reflation of the economy, certainly in the construction industry and in social service work. I believe that this is a step that the Government will be able to take, and the people of the North-West will thank them.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: So many hon. Members in the debate have quoted the unemployment statistics for the North-West that I can safely leave them aside. A grim but realistic picture has been painted. One thing, however, needs saying. I do not think that anyone has mentioned the significance, at least for North-East Lancashire, of the change of course by the Conservative Government in 1972, when the Industry Act was introduced and the relative advantage that North-East Lancashire then had vanished.
One of our problems in the regions is that the jam is spread so widely and so thinly that in many respects it makes little difference. When talking about Government aid, we are really talking about relative advantages and disadvantages. I urge my right hon. Friend to consult the Department of Industry with a view to holding a total review—not a continuing or a temporary or partial review, but a total review—of regional policy. It seems nonsense to us in North-East Lancashire that North-East Scotland should have greater advantages than we have, bearing in mind the decaying industrial base that we have in many of our constituencies. Therefore, it is realistic that such a review should take place.
It has been said that one of the main problems of the North-West is that our unemployment is not caused simply by the recession but is part of a long-term structural decline and that it needs direct intervention to reverse it. In the textile industry, for example, about 100,000 jobs have been lost since the mid 1960s. In footwear and clothing, the figure of jobs lost is about 25,000. In electrical engineering it is 40,000, and it is about the same in mechanical engineering. That is the situation that we face in the North-West, and we have what might be described as an abundance of very sensitive industries facing long-term structural decline. So far, regional policy has done little to restore the balance.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) gave us a very interesting statistical account of the composition of unemployment in the North-West, and he told us the causes. However, I failed to detect anything in his speech in terms of a policy that a possible Tory Government would introduce to deal with the problems. It should be pointed out that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has been more forthright. In an article in Industry North West just before Christmas, his answer to the problems of the North-West was to withdraw the lot: he said that the Government should get off industry's backs, that industry had far more trouble getting grants than they were worth, and that there should be an end to the whole system. I do not think that that would get a very welcome response from many manufacturers in footwear and textiles in Rossendale who


at the moment are anxious about the continuation of a number of Government grants. But at least the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward an honest point of view.
However, if we are to deal with structural decline, we need a policy of intervention and not one of disengagement. So far in the history of this Government, the interventionist policies on the basis of which we were elected have not yet worked in the North-West.
We have heard about the problem of the Central Lancashire New Town and the uncertainty that that is causing. In my view we need a structural plan linked around the Central Lancashire New Town, even without the full development which was envisaged, going right across Lancashire so that we can bring in basic manufacturing industries to ensure that, within the confines of such a plan operating through the NEB and planning agreements, the component manufacturers of those industries are in North-East Lancashire—

Mr. Dan Jones: Either that, or abolish the new town.

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend makes a sedentary comment. I shall not disturb him too much, because he may get to his feet and then perhaps we shall not be able to finish this debate.
Before my hon. Friend's helpful intervention, I was making the point that we had to plan the situation in Mid-Lancashire and to make sure that the Government intervened in directions which were helpful to the area.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said about textiles. The Government have got to be tough in Europe. Let us talk politics for a moment. There are more marginal seats tied up with textiles than with any other industry in the country. If the Government are not tough in Europe and in the forthcoming GATT negotiations, our textile workers will be tough with the Government when election time comes round.
It was very interesting to hear about the tour round the North-West by Tory Members who wanted to find out some-

thing about the textile industry. If they had taken part in debates in this Chamber, they would have had a briefing before they went. I exclude the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from that comment because I know that he has played an honourable rôle in the struggle for textiles, but many of the others who went up to the area seemed to know very little about what had been going on in the industry.
We look forward to the results of the Department of Industry's survey of the footwear industry with considerable interest. We would want those results published as soon as possible and a guarantee of Government action. The indications are that we produce very good shoes and that technically we are efficient, but we could do with a boost in marketing management and design. I should like to correct the comments which have been made tonight about competition from Eastern Europe. The Government have taken considerable steps to control this, and a fortnight ago I receive a letter indicating that further restrictions had been placed on Polish footwear.
Both the textile and the footwear industries are concerned about the future of the temporary employment subsidy. This is causing a great deal of uncertainty, and I urge the Government to make an early announcement that if the TES is not to be continued an alternative will be introduced to meet the problems of manufacturing industry in the North-West.
I turn to the problems of small manufacturing businesses. We usually hear a great deal from the Opposition about small businesses. However, from the comments tonight I do not think the Opposition are paying a great deal of interest. Their usual cry is that there is too much legislation. They claim that if the Government get off the backs of small business men they will be all right. But it was the hon. Member for Rochdale who put his finger on it. The problem is not the insurance stamp. The problem facing small business men is one of cash flow. I have not heard Conservatives mention that tonight.
The situation in the North-West is that almost 40 per cent. of manufacturing units employ fewer than 25 workers, and 75 per cent. employ fewer than 100. The


important thing about this, in the relationship between investment and employment, is that most units are labour-intensive. In terms of pound-for-pound value, we would get better returns if more money were pumped into those industries than into capital-intensive industries. The main problem is cash flow, particularly at a time of economic upturn when firms are trying to invest but cannot get the money.
The average time for payment of bills to a small contractor dealing with a large firm is three months. Clearing banks' lending to manufacturing industry is diminishing because the criteria for lending money are becoming more stringent. Because profitability is less in manufacturing industry, the banks are less willing to lend. In fact, many banks would be happier to lend money to a string of betting shops than to a small manufacturer. Obviously, something needs to be done.
At the Labour Party Conference last year there was a very interesting debate about public ownership in the banking sector. I will leave the merits of that for a different debate. What I would like to recommend to the Government is a regional development bank, based in the regions, with the purpose of factoring invoices for small businesses. This has been discussed with small business men and with sympathetic banks which can find no technical fault with the idea. If invoices were factored in this way, a manufacturer could send out his goods with an invoice with a tear-off slip which would be returned to him and taken to the discount bank, and his money could be paid on the nail—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is done already.

Mr. Noble: Yes, it is, but at exorbitant interest rates. This system could be used to apply discrimination in terms of regional policy. There is no reason why a Government regional bank should not allow different discount rates according to the level of unemployment in a particular area. In that way, selectivity could be employed in a manner which has not been possible before.
The money is available. There is still £750 million in the FFI. This kind of

approach to small businesses is worth thinking about, and it is far more important than the constant carping by the Conservatives that the problem with small business men is that they have to cope with too much legislation. Their problem is cash, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take this point on board.
The North-West as a regional microcosm is exactly what the election policies of the Labour Party in 1974 were about. Those polices were concerned with the regeneration of British industry. The people in the trade unions in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends are awaiting far more effective promotion of those policies than hitherto. Times are perhaps beginning to run out for the North-West in employment terms. We are looking to my right hon. Friend to put things in better perspective.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are still 19 hon. Members who would like to catch my eye before 9.30, when the winding-up speeches start. I therefore appeal to hon. Members to keep their speeches brief.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) put his finger on the matter when he said that the problem of small businesses is cash flow, or simply cash. However, a lot of things go to make up that problem, including, in a very small way, the increase in the employment stamp. Many things go to create a shortage of cash. Some of them, such as increasing taxation and the increase in the stamp, are the direct fault of the Government. Some of them, such as the increase in rates of interest, are the indirect fault of the Government. But most of them are the responsibililty of the Government in one form or another. It is because small business is likely to employ more labour, proportionately, that it is upon the small business that we must concentrate.
If any one speech in the debate has done anything, it was done by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), who, in a moving speech, said that he would no longer tolerate the adjectives "unacceptable" and


"intolerable" from the Government Front Bench when it was dealing with the rate of unemployment.
There is a sort of incantation that takes place from the Government Dispatch Box when, month after month, and, now, year after year, Ministers say that the rate of unemployment is unacceptable. What do they think they are doing by using that adjective? Everybody knows that the rate is terrible. To say that it is unacceptable does not advance a solution. It is a mere incantation, and it is beginning to irritate the House and the country a great deal.
I must take off my hat to the Secretary of State, because he spelled it out better than I have heard any Minister do before when he said that the dishing out of grants to large industry did not produce the answer. Large manufacturing now employs, proportionately, so little labour that it is impossible to buy one's way out of unemployment by the methods that the Government selected two years or even one year ago. That lesson is now learned. These large grants to manufacturing industry, although they may be important for other purposes, will not solve the unemployment problem.
The only way in which the problem can be solved, and in which the Government can hope to make a serious impression upon it in a relatively short time, is by making it more profitable for small and medium-seized businesses to take on more labour, by making it more worth while for potentially skilled labour to become skilled, and for people to work rather than remain on the dole.
I have been sent a letter by a business man—a bleacher and dyer—in a medium-sized firm in my constituency. I shall read it, or, at least, parts of it because some of it is in unparliamentary language. It begins with an extremely encouraging sentence:
We are full of work, some of it export and some of it Government and our delivery is eight weeks against four weeks that the poor spinners and weavers have, so unlike the poor spinners who are short of work, we want men.
When I read that I thought that for the first time this was good news. But the letter goes on:
This week I contacted the employment bureau in Bolton and Mrs. Parks went through 200 or so names and not a single jig dyer

to be found. In the past we have interviewed a number of aspirants to train as jiggers. We have only two training now. It is expensive training both from the production point of view both as regards trainer and trainee. But what happens now, if the men are married with families, it only means two or three pounds a week more than they can get on the dole. Out of every four that we start training only one lasts a fortnight. The majority, as soon as they have done a week and qualify for the dole, go and disappear".
The problem is the interface between wages and benefits. That is a problem that is familiar to the Government and one that they say they will put right. Perhaps they will put it right in the next Budget, but every week this goes on and every week people start training and then find that it is not worth continuing because there is little difference between what they can get as a trainee for skilled and important work dealing with export production and what they can get on the dole. While we have a continuance of the situation in which there is lack of common sense in the interface between unemployment and social security benefits and the wage differential, the Government cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that they are doing all they can to resolve the unemployment problem.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The employment problem in the North-West is capable of solution in the long term only within the context of a total Government economic strategy. But there are actions, in both the national and the regional context, that the Government can take. I endorse the admirable analysis by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) with regard to unemployment in the North-West, but I failed to hear any positive proposals from him for dealing with the problem. Some of the methods might be temporary or emergency ones. Some methods have been referred to as palliatives, but we are in an emergency situation.
I hope that, given recent trends, we are facing temporary difficulties. We therefore need short-term measures to deal with short-term problems, as well as a longer-term strategy to overcome the problem of unemployment in the North-West.
I last raised this matter in the House last year, when the North-West had overtaken the percentage unemployment rate


of Scotland. Since then, there has been a slight relative change, though, in absolute terms, there are still 189,000 unemployed in the North-West, compared with 160,900 in Scotland. Without disrespect to my hon. Friends from Scotland and Wales, I must say that I find it a little odd that after days of debate on devolution we should have only three hours to debate the problems of the North-West, which was, after all, the cradle of the Industral Revolution and which, as I have said before, I hope will not become its graveyard.
The regional disparities are appalling. Unemployment in the South-East is 4·6 per cent., in the East Midlands 5 per cent., and in the North-West 7·2 per cent. The North-West is an area of high manufacturing skills and experience in such areas as engineering, chemicals, and fibres. The fact that the gap between other regions and the North-West has narrowed is not because our position has improved but because of the general deterioration in the unemployment figures.
We are troubled because it is not merely structural changes affecting coal and cotton that we are facing. There are problems in electronics, television tubes and chemicals. A whole ICI manufacturing plant in my constituency is being closed. There is concern, too, at the failure to give approval to the HS146 project and the Nimrod AEW project. If another place had not played high jinks with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Rose: It did. The hon. Gentleman should talk to the workers at Chadderton and Woodford. But for the action of the House of Lords, we might by now have the HS146 project, which could employ 20,000 people. Of course, it would also be better to build the Nimrods and save £50 million for our balance of payments.
We are concerned at the decline in parts of industry which we have been taking for granted. There are parts of the North-West, including Merseyside and the Fylde coast, which have been suffering particularly hard under the blight of unemployment. We need an

integrated strategy for the North-West as a whole and not merely to look at each part of the area in isolation.
Even in the vital engineering industry, many of us are concerned about the GEC turbine generating plant at Trafford Park, in our industrial heartland. Even in that sector, of which we are proudest we find a danger of skilled employment being lost.
We need positive regional policies. I cannot understand why only 10 per cent. —9·9 million—of the allocation from the EEC Regional Fund between October 1975 and January 1977 has come to the North-West when we have 15 per cent. of the country's unemployment and are fast becoming what may be termed a Cinderella area. This is the fault of our Government and not of the EEC.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is certainly not the fault of the Community. It is entirely the fault of the Government if they refuse to allow each part of the North-West to become a development area and if only 20 per cent. of the money from the EEC Regional Development fund goes to intermediate areas. It is because the Government will not make us development areas that we cannot get the money. The Commissioners would be glad to send us funds if the Government changed their policy.

Mr. Rose: If the hon. Lady had been listening instead of reading she would have heard that that was what I said. I do not know why she interrupts me in order to agree with me, but I am grateful to her for pointing out that the North-West ought to be a development area.
If one looks at the United Kingdom as a whole—the rosy prospects for Scotland and the bonanza that is expected there —and compares that with the long-term gradual erosion and decline of industry in the North-West, which has gone almost unobserved, it is obvious that the North-West should be a development area. I was making precisely that point. The North-West is not getting its fair share. That decision was the Government's and not the Commissioners'. Similarly, the placing of contracts is an area in which the Government could intervene to help the North-West.
I believe that temporary and selective import controls ought to be introduced, not only for textiles and footwear, but in micro-electronics—one of the most important future development areas in industry, where we are fast losing ground to Japan. We need both swords and shields to establish industry in the North-West.
I should like to see the job creation programme greatly expanded, with far more money put into it. I should like to see a different emphasis, not just on providing jobs for 10 months, but on providing development training for young people with a view to permanent employment, and a specific emphasis on training young people from inner urban areas who are most in need.

Mr. Rose: In co-ordinating that, the National Enterprise Board should be brought in, in conjunction with local authorities and with voluntary bodies.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are still about 500,000 young people under the age of 25 without work? Is he aware that the job creation programme at its highest created between 30,000 and 35,000 jobs for that section of young people? Is he aware that however much money one puts into the job creation programme, and we have already spent £90 million, we shall never solve that problem?

Mr. Rose: The way in which Opposition Members take advantage of my generosity is such that I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman is posing questions as if I were the Minister in charge of the programme, which I am not. I am pointing out that we need a larger programme—a different emphasis—in relation both to those in whose direction the programme is pointed and to the areas most in need—the inner city areas. I am asking for a far larger sum of money to be spent on the programme. That is only one of many proposals that I am putting forward.
The infrastructure and the environment of the North-West are hardly the kind to attract, for example, middle management. Some time ago we had Operation Eyesore. I should like to see that revived. I want to see the Coronation Street-type houses erased. We have successfully removed them in Manchester.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) said very effectively, in an area in which we need new schools and hospitals, and more public expenditure, it is nonsense to cut down on the construction industry. Here I entirely differ from my Front Bench about our priorities. It is only through that sort of public expenditure that we shall obtain employment and the improvement of facilities that will attract new industry to the North-West. It is not the chicken-and-the-egg question there is an inter-relation between the two. Unless we have facilities for schools, hospitals, housing and the rest we shall not attract industry, and vice versa.
I turn now to the Greater Manchester area. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) made the point that the Greater Manchester area lost 180,000 jobs between 1959 and 1972. That is 15 per cent. of all jobs. But what is of concern to us is that 25 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs have gone in an area with traditional skills. Therefore, we need this regeneration in manufacturing industry, above all in inner urban areas.
We need to attack the problem facing great conurbations in inner urban areas. The problem is distorted in terms of the statistics of migration from those areas. The position is far worse than the statistics show, because many young people are leaving those areas for the more attactive areas of the Midlands and the South. Our town centres have suffered disproportionately. We must tackle the whole problem of industrial dereliction, because that in itself is a great hurdle in attracting investment and interest in the North-West.
One matter that has not been mentioned—people seem to laugh at it in the context of the North-West—is tourism. The North-West has a great airport. It is the centre of an area of great natural beauty, whether it be the Lake District, the Trough of Bowland, the Yorkshire Dales, or Snowdonia. It is within striking distance of the Cotswolds or London for those American tourists who wish to go there. I believe that there is a great natural potential for tourism in the North-West—a potential that has not been developed and that has a spin-off in terms of prosperity for the area.
We face a particular problem because of the way in which successive Governments have treated the North-West in terms of grants. According to the Greater Manchester Council, in its recent contribution to thought on the matter, there has been a net drain of £20 million a year from the Greater Manchester area, because although it has contributed £25 million it has received back only £5 million in incentives. Therefore, we have the situation of the richer areas getting richer and the poorer areas getting poorer.
Turning to unemployment, there are great unused human resources. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington said that it was time that we stopped talking and paying lip service to the fact that those unused human resources are at an unacceptable level and did something positive about the situation. To pay a temporary employment subsidy is not enough. To pay people virtually to do nothing is not enough. Whether we pay subsidy, unemployment or supplementary benefit, the fact remains that we are not producing anything. Even if the HS146 and Nimrod projects were not commercially viable—I believe that they are—at least we should be producing something that we can export and build up potential for.
I realise that hon. Members may wish to speak. I have been interrupted twice, and my speech has been doubled in consequence. Hon. Members will reap the seeds that they have sown.
I believe that the North-West has all the possibilities, the experience and the skills that are needed. We need positive incentives and urgent action to deal with the situation here and now, as well as the long-term strategy to which my right hon. Friend referred.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I suppose that in shorthand terms this debate could be described as the realisation that unemployment in the North-West has increased above the national level. What are the Government going to do about it?
The Secretary of State told us of his regret that unemployment exists and set out one or two promises and hopes. I had better make my own position clear.

I have never been much of a supporter of regionalism or of the idea of creating assisted areas all over the country—until we reach a point when there is probably only a small area around Sloane Square Underground station which is not assisted in some way or other. The process of creating assisted areas can destroy itself.
Before any Labour Member reminds me that I have taken part in deputations to Ministers on this subject, I must say that I have done it with something of a half-hearted approach, because when I look round my constituency I find it difficult to identify firms that have come into the constituency because they have been persuaded entirely by the smallish tax advantages offered.
I think that there may be a problem for us in the North-West—I speak more in a spirit of inquiry than of dogmatism —in that we are a little old-fashioned in our attitude when we are thinking of what sort of firms we want to attract to our part of the country. I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that the pattern of industry in the area is changing. I can cite my constituency as a good example. Many mills in name are no longer concerned with textiles. There is a considerable demand from school leavers in my constituency for office jobs, especially for young women. In the old days of the textile industry many of these young women would have been absorbed into the mills, but the mills no longer exist. I repeat that sometimes we are just a little old-fashioned when we think of the North-West in those terms. We should, perhaps, modernise our approach when we think of encouraging firms to our part of the country.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), talking with that sort of rough common sense which is so much his professional expertise, said that he regarded himself as a small employer, employing 70 people. By the standards of my constituency, that makes him a rather large employer. It is when we get Iowa to employing seven people that we start thinking of financial advantage and disadvantage, thinking very much in terms of national insurance premiums and the like. A great deal of industry and commerce in my constituency is made up of very small firms indeed. There is no doubt that the Government's financial


and economic policies bear very hard on these small business men.
It is extraordinary, in the light of the policies pursued by the Government, to hear their regrets at the amount of unemployment and to hear them talking about attracting investment in present circumstances. Now that the Government have promised to implement the Bullock Report, can anyone imagine a private investor saying "Yes, these are just the firms that I want to invest in. They obviously have a great future and a great potential"? Talk of investment incentives by Labour Members really smacks of hypocrisy.
I do not think that the Government have a solution to this problem, but, in fairness, I do not think that any Government could say that they had a complete solution to unemployment. So much depends on outside factors. I do not think that it is a question of pouring more public money into assisted areas merely—as the Secretary of State said—to maintain the present situation. That will not solve the problem.
I therefore beg leave to doubt some of the assumptions which have run through the whole course of this debate. Naturally, I agreed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), but to my constituent the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) I can only say that, if I had been given an opportunity to contribute to the magazine to which he referred, I should have done so in almost exactly the same words as those used by my hon. and learned Friend.
I return to my shorthand introduction. Unemployment exists in the North West and it is increasing. I find it sad to remember that in the past when we were arguing for development area status the Government reaction was to say that it was impossible because of the high level of employment in the area.
What are the Government planning to do about the situation? The Secretary of State said—and I paraphrase—"I shall spend and promise more public money". In my language, that means "I shall spend and promise more of the taxpayer's money". I beg leave to doubt whether that is the answer to our problems.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I am pleased to be the first to be called from the Greater Merseyside region. I promise to honour my commitment to sit down at 9.35 p.m. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend attended the debate, as I was pleased that he attended the recent debate on North-West affairs on 17th November, and on my Adjournment debate on Skelmersdale on 18th November I paid tribute to him and his colleagues for their attendance.
The problem of unemployment is world-wide, but we tend to overlook that. We have been hit by the effects of that world-wide unemployment perhaps because of some basic defects in our structure which have not been attended to for many years.
Skelmersdale New Town is in my constituency. It could be declared a disaster area because male unemployment is over 21 per cent. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and will agree that we need special measures to deal with that special problem.
I was going to speak about the need for a sensible import policy, but much of my argument has been deployed already. I believe in fair dealing with other nations. Poland has been mentioned. The Poles have been reasonably good to us. The firms which have received shipbuilding orders from them will certainly believe that they have been good to us. If countries deal fairly with us we should not complain. We should concentrate our attention on countries which deal unfairly with us.
We cannot have a healthy North-West in an unhealthy Britain. I do not believe in the idea that more investment is bad because in the short run it will mean fewer jobs. I am not against investment, but the country needs more investment in the right places and it is for the Government, under an enlightened training programme, to take care of the casualties. That is the way that we will get on our feet. We have to complete internationally and we have to earn our bread.
I urge the Minister to offer some hope for my constituents in Skelmersdale because we desperately need that help. I have mentioned before the need for a


new hospital and for a better deal under the Government's dispersal programme. If the North-West Region receives the jobs that are planned under that programme, it will get only 155 jobs per 100,000 population compared with 675 jobs per 100,000 in Wales. The imbalance is wrong. Help should be given according to need. The need in Skelmersdale is great, as it is in the North-West in general. I hope that the Government will offer us some succour tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Barney Hayhoe.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of all the major conurbations in the North-West, Liverpool has the highest unemployment figure. Not one Liverpool Member from this side of the House has been called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is aware that no point of order arises out of the selection of speakers.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who has pleaded the case for Skelmersdale so often and so passionately in the House, said that we cannot have a healthy North-West in an unhealthy Britain. The hon. Member was right to make it clear that the problems of the North-West must be viewed in the context of the whole of our economy and of our economic problems.
We have had a timely debate. It has provided an opportunity for compelling and powerful contributions to be made from both sides of the House. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who, because of the change in the business today, felt that he had to carry out a very long-standing engagement in the north of the country.
Anyone who has sat through all the contributions to the debate will realise that there is agreement between the two sides of the House that there is no easy solution to the problem of unemployment in the North-West, or, indeed, anywhere else. The Prime Minister is reported as having said last night to the Labour trade union group that he did not know the answer. Hon. Members will have seen

the headline "Government impotent on jobless".
Certainly the long-term structural problems will take a considerable time to solve. We shall be voting tonight because we believe that the problems have been aggravated by Socialist policies, both what they have done and what they have failed to do. In saying that, of course I accept that the world recession has had its effect upon employment prospects in the United Kingdom. However, the Government cannot go on using world conditions as the alibi for their inability and their inaction in dealing with some of the factors within our economy which have made matters worse.
One of the questions to which I hope that this debate will provide an answer is why the North-West has become worse compared with the rest of the United Kingdom in the past six to seven years. Up to that time, unemployment in the North-West was at about the national average and had been so for many years. However, during the course of the past decade it has got worse.
I do not think that the debate has told us why that has happened. Is it because potential investors and business men who might go to the North-West perceive the industrial climate to be more hostile there? I am not saying that it is, but perhaps they perceive it to be so and, therefore, do not bring their investment to that area.
I hope that if there are unjustified views about the situation in the North-West the unanimity of view expressed in this debate about the potential of the North-West and the opportunities that it offers, which were referred to particularly by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), will reassure people.
I wonder whether the problems related to the rôle of Liverpool as a great port and its changing rôle will have affected the North-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) referred to the practical problems on Merseyside, which has a rate of unemployment greatly above the national average. The problems that exist there call for the type of imaginative initiative to which my hon. Friend referred.
There are other problems. There is lack of profitability, for example. The fact that small businesses are short of cash has been mentioned. One reason


for lack of profitability stems back into much of the mythology of Socialism, which is to attack profits and pour scorn on them. Much of the propaganda that we have had in the past must be forgotten before there can be a real understanding of the rôle of profitability if we are to get better investment.
Reference was made to the CBI survey, which indicated that profitable industry in the North-West provides matching employment because of the multiplier effect of the orders and resources that it generates. It is highly significant that the key to beating unemployment cannot be in public spending, as some have suggested, and it cannot be in expanding the non-productive public sector, whether national or local. It can only be by the expansion of industry which produces the goods and services for export or substitutes for the imports that are dragged in. There is no other way. Labour Members who continue to talk as though the problem can be solved by throwing public money about and creating jobs in that way are doing a great disservice.
We have had again tonight an oversimpliste approach to public expenditure. In some ways it is surprising that we have had the same old parrot cries about public expenditure cuts automatically creating unemployment, That is the charge that is thrown at us by Labour Members. Did they not listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Have they not read the speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered shortly before Christmas? Do they not realise that high levels of public expenditure lead to a combination of resultant high taxation and borrowing which has disastrous consequences?
High taxes destroy incentive and clobber the industry whose growth is so essential. High borrowing stacks up problems by pushing up interest rates. If it gets too large, it erodes the external value of the pound and, as a result, it is necessary for the Government to take action.
I remind the House of what the Chancellor said. He said:
If we had failed to recover control of our currency and to offer the prospect of a continuing fall in our interest rates, the conse-

quences would have been catastrophic both for jobs and prices.
In other words, if public expenditure had been allowed to continue at existing levels, and certainly if public expenditure had been increased, the result, in the Chancellor's view, would have been catastrophic for both jobs and prices. Indeed, we have been telling him that for two and a half years or three years, ever since public money was thrown at every problem throughout the county. In 1974, perhaps with the idea of helping to win the General Election that came later in the year.
But at last at least the Treasury Bench understands. It also understands that once we have restored control over the currency or, at least, once we have stopped the runaway decline we were experiencing towards the end of last year and interest rates come down, the effect will be to generate confidence That in itself —again I use the Chancellor's words—can
generate sufficient additional activity in the private sector to offset the direct effects of the cut in PSBR".—[Official Report, 21st December 1976; Vol. 923, c. 484–499.]
Therefore, it is necessary that we understand the problems and do not try to treat them in the over-simplified fashion that some Labour Members have adopted today.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) put his finger on the answer when he said that we need more profitable private industry. The Secretary of State spoke of the problem of increased investment going to capital-intensive industries with few job opportunities and of the £25 million ICI project and the 90 jobs that it will create. Surely it is the experience of other countries that increased investment, if it leads to increased productivity, stimulates increased activity. It is through increased productivity and lower unit costs that we shall get out of our difficulties. Work-sharing schemes, spreading the work more widely, raising unit costs and lowering productivity, merely compound our problems. They do not solve them.
There is no alternative to encouraging the increased provision of goods and services, and in services I include tourism.


I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) about the need for increased training and the palliative measures which have some effect—job creation, the temporary employment subsidy and work experience. The hon. Gentleman's comments were right, but those measures provide no long-term solution. The only solution is to get the economic climate right for more profitable private productive industry, producing goods and services which can be sold abroad at the right price.
This is not a crisis of capitalism, as has been suggested. To whom do the Government turn when they get into their crisis? For their loan they look not to the Socialist States but to the capitalists. Even the Meriden Co-operative has gone not to another co-operative, or to some Socialist grouping but, if the reports are right, to Sir Arnold Weinstock of GEC to help it out of its difficulties. We see capitalism providing the solution to our problems rather than being the cause of them.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was absolutely right when he said that the Labour Party was the natural party of unemployment. It does not want to be. That is not its intention. If, however, we look at every period when a Labour Government have been in office we see that by the time they leave office more people are unemployed than when they came to power.
We shall vote tonight because of the humbug and hypocrisy of Ministers who continually say that unemployment is unacceptable while pursuing policies that make it worse. The Secretary of State, who spoke so proudly of the Employment Protection Act, lent his name to an advertisement about it which has appeared in the newspapers in the past few days. Although unemployment is now nearly 1½ million, the bottom of the advertisement has the words
A better working life for everyone".

Mr. Dan Jones: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: What cynical, tawdry propaganda that is! We vote against that as well.

9.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I begin by saying how sorry I am for all those hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have sat so long and patiently—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And ladies.

Mr. Walker: The regrettable shortness of our debate in no way diminishes the importance that I attach to it, nor the importance that I attach to the seriousness of the level of unemployment in the North-West. If the Front Bench speeches are compressed, it is because we have been anxious to give Back Benchers from the North-West the maximum opportunity to take part in the debate. But this means that I shall not be able to respond as fully as the House might expect or as I should have hoped.
Perhaps before I turn to some of the specific issues that emerged in the debate I should establish my credentials. I spent almost the whole of my life, until fairly recently, west of the Pennines, in my native Lancashire. Therefore, I may claim to have some first-hand knowledge of the problems described in the debate.
The speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was reminiscent of the kind of speech we heard from him and his party in the period leading up to the General Election in 1970 and during the Conservatives' first two years in office. Two years later we had over 1 million unemployed. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want the facts and figures they can have them. In 1972 the official figures showed that there were 1½ million unemployed.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was somewhat contemptuous about the temporary measures—[Interruption.]—that we introduced. The Leader of the Opposition has only just come into the Chamber. Now she wants to carry on a sedentary conversation. She ought to be a little better-mannered.

Mr. Hayhoe: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall not give way. Opposition Members must be prepared to listen. The hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth seemed contemptuous


of the temporary measures the Government have introduced, as did the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I shall not repeat the figures that my right hon. Friend gave except to say that since the introduction of these measures they have saved, or created, nationally over 500,000 employment and training opportunities. That is an important contribution to keeping down the unemployment figures. The numbers in training in the North-West in the last two years, total 24,000. These people have been able to take advantage of the training opportunities courses.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who made a constructive speech, might be interested to know that of those undergoing TOPS training significantly more than 50 per cent. receive their training in colleges of further education. Since the question of apprenticeships was raised, I ought to tell the House that in 1975–76 there was the highest number of engineering apprentices in training over the five-year period from 1970. In the construction industry there has been a big jump in the number of apprenticeships since 1974–75.
One of the main topics in the debate has been the subject of small firms. I hope that no one will accuse the Government of being insensitive to the troubles of small businesses. [Intecruplion.] It is nonsense to imply that under a Government of a different complexion the problems would disappear overnight. Although some people seek to lay the blame for the difficulties of small firms on the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) came a little nearer the mark when he drew attention to the cash flow problems of these firms.
Some of the critics might have expended their energies dissuading the bigger firms—the giants of industry—from shortening the credit terms that they extend to small firms and asking them not to delay payment of bills to small suppliers. That is one of the worries that small businesses have. The bigger firms could be helpful and sympathetic here. The small firms acknowledge their debt to the Small Firms Information Service. Many have taken advantage of my Department's schemes to encourage and maintain employment. Help is also available through the assistance given by the Industry Department

in assisted areas and through a wide range of sectoral schemes.
Another issue that has been a persistent theme in the debate, inevitably so when discussing a region so heavily dominated by Lancashire, is the problem of the textile industry and the pending renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. The Government recognise that there are serious shortcomings in the arrangement. The main change that we wish to see is a recognition of the need for protection against the cumulative effects of low-cost imports and the lowering of quota growth rates in certain circumstances. These objectives are very much in the minds of those on both sides of industry who are being kept fully in contact with what is happening by the Government. In Geneva the EEC, speaking on behalf of member States, said that the present Multi-Fibre Arrangement has not achieved all its objectives and that a serious problem remains for the European textile industry. Improvements in the arrangement are required.
Particular issues that should be examined during the renegotiation are high import penetration, cumulative disruption, quota base levels, disruptive prices, and forestalling. Those concerned have also reserved the right to raise other issues later. They are now working on a detailed negotiating mandate on the main objectives stated in December.
The Multi-Fibre Arrangement does not expire until the end of the year, but we shall continue to use the safeguarding provisions where necessary. In addition, the EEC will be negotiating further bilateral restraint agreements in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Joplin), in an intervention, referred to the footwear industry—an industry which has a large concentration of activity in the Rossendale Valley. I appreciate the importance of the footwear industry to Rossendale and towns in that area. The Department of Industry has given formal recognition to the problems of the industry by helping to set up an industrial steering group. The footwear study is now nearing completion, and we hope shortly to have the benefit of a final report. All Departments will want to study that report carefully before


deciding the best action to be taken in the interests of the industry.
Reference was made to dumping of footwear industry products. I remind the House that voluntary restraint agreements have been in operation during the period 1975–76 relating to the principal sources of cheap footwear, namely, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. The Government have asked the EEC Commission to seek an extension of these voluntary arrangements into 1977 and to broaden coverage to include women's and children's sandals from Romania. Antidumping investigations into the importation of men's sandals from Poland and Czechoslovakia are under way.
Inevitably, the time factor denies me the opportunity to respond to many of the points raised in this debate, but I assure the House that that does not mean that this matter will be forgotten or overlooked—far from it. We shall study with care all the speeches made in the debate.
I must make one point on the unemployment figures, to which reference was made at the beginning of the debate. Making due allowance for changes in methods and other calculations, we believe that if the same methods were still in use today the figures for the North-West would be significantly lower than under a Conservative Government in 1972.
We understand the deep concern, reflected by many contributions in the debate, about the intolerable level of unemployment in the North-West, and we

have every intention of tackling it. I have no illusions about the size of the task, and I should be less than honest if I did not recognise that the deep-seated structural unemployment which is particularly acute and distressing in Merseyside will persist even when demand-related unemployment falls. We must, and will, use all the instruments available to speed the remedy.

I conclude by saying that perhaps in recent years there have been far too many knockers of industry and of the situation in this area. It has suffered an image that is inconsistent with reality—never better illustrated than by falsified pictures of Merseyside industrial relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was right to remind the House of the natural beauty of the region. I echo the appeal launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), who urged hon. Members to avoid placing themselves in the ranks of the knockers in the region, because it contains as fine a group of people as are to be found anywhere in the country. They are people with a special brand of determination that has taken them through difficult times before, and no doubt they will come through again on this occasion. We must do all we can to help them to make a success of their efforts.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 289.

Division No. 56.]
 AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Alison, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bulmer, Esmond
Drayson, Burnaby


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Kenneth
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Durant, Tony


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hn Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Channon, Paul
Elliott, Sir William


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Cordle, John H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Corrie, John
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Jullan
Fox, Marcus


Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter




Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhodes James, R.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sainsbury, Tim


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
St. John-Steves, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Fred


Grylls, Michael
Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald
Sims, Roger


Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spence, John


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Stanley, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stokes, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hodgson, Robin
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wakeham, John


Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wall, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wells, John


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Younger, Hon George


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)



Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THF AYES:


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Spencer Le Marcbant and


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Conian, Bernard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Corbett, Robin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Cowans, Harry


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cronin, John


Bates, Alf
Campbell, Ian
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric







Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lambie, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Duffy. A. E. P.
Lee, John
Booker, J. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Ryman, John


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luard, Evan
Selby, Harry


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spearing, Nigel


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Swain, Thomas


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Grocott, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Tomlinson, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ward, Michael


Horam, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkins, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John
Whitlock, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Darttord)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Janner, Greville
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Judd, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)



Kelley, Richard
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mrs. Ann Taylor and


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR VEHICLE TESTS

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1977), dated 23rd November 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are also to discuss the second motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2155), dated 15th December 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be annulled.

Mr. Fowler: I wish to make clear that the purpose of the Prayer is to allow a general debate on the MOT test. It is important to every motorist and it would be wrong for this occasion to pass without a discussion. The aim of the Opposition is to improve the effect of the tests. Therefore, we shall not be voting against the regulations tonight. I make that clear not only to help Labour Members but because the purpose of the Prayer procedure is sometimes misunderstood outside the House. The truth is that it provides the only opportunity for a debate on the regulations.
Our aim, therefore, is to have a constructive debate. I hope the Minister will accept that although we have criticisms and suggestions they are made with the aim of improving road safety. There is no division on that objective between the two sides of the House.
The Government have set down the new conditions which cars will have to meet from 1st January this year. I know the Minister will agree that the Government have been greatly helped in the introduction of the new scheme by the representatives of the Motor Agents Association, and I pay tribute to that body. The new requirements cover a number of additional points. They mean, for example, that checks are now carried out on stop lamps, wheels, direction indicators, windscreen washers and wipers, exhaust systems, seat belts, bodywork and suspension.
These are important new requirements, but my first criticism is that very little

effort has been made to tell the public what is now required of them. This is a fundamentally important point. If we are to have good road safety standards, the requirements of the law must be known and should be publicised, yet the evidence suggests that thousands of motorists are in the dark and do not know what is required of them. This point is made in the current issue of the magazine of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It is made even more forcefully by Motor Trader magazine.
But that is not all. It is not only the public who have been left in the dark. In addition, the new manuals for use by testing stations are only now becoming available at the end of the first month of operation of the new regulations. In the first weeks of the scheme the manuals that were intended to act as a detailed guide for the testing stations were simply not available. This position moved one motoring magazine to dub the Department of Transport the "Ministry of Chaos". Whether or not we agree about that, I am sure the House will agree that there has been a serious muddle over the introduction of the new requirements.
Perhaps that is one reason why, on the latest information available, the number of MOT failures seems to be increasing. Clearly it is early days yet, and it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the figures, but the surveys which have been carried out suggest that the failure rate has increased since the beginning of the year. A survey by the Motor Trader showed that the failure rate on MOT tests was now 45 per cent., which represents a sharp increase on the rate until 1st January this year.
A remarkable survey carried out by a test centre in the South-East showed that 48 per cent. of 440 cars tested failed. Evidence showed that many of the faults were concerned with the new requirements in these regulations—namely, those relating to washers, wipers and indicators. The point that I emphasise is that if the conditions we are debating are important enough to go into the MOT rules, the motoring public should be made aware of them. Frankly, a considerable number of motorists in the country do not know what is now required of them. I


hope that if the debate does nothing else it will at least help in that respect.
I now turn to the philosophy of the scheme and its aim. The MOT test is a useful aid to road safety. It prevents unroadworthy cars being on the road. The Minister and I have had our disagreements about seriously damaged cars, but that is not an issue that could appropriately be raised in this debate. The MOT test has done useful work and has prevented accidents, but it is not, and was never intended to be, a guarantee of safety for the following months. The responsibility still lies with the motorist himself.
There is another basic point. The MOT test is not always the most exacting. A car going at 60 miles per hour with good brakes should be able to stop in 150 ft. The minimum standard required by the MOT test is that it should be able to stop in 240 ft. That is the difference between a car with 80 per cent. braking efficiency and one with 50 per cent., efficiency, yet the 50 per cent. requirement is laid down in the MOT test. Even after passing the test, a car may be in a condition that many professionals in motoring would describe as not ideal and probably as unsatisfactory. The MOT certificate does not guarantee safety. It is an important check list, and we should be wise to regard it as simply that.
Many cars fail the MOT test. Many could be put right, but in other cases the motorist may want to appeal. The legal position was described by a Department of the Environment official, Mr. B. J. Bennett, in a letter last March. He said that a driver who drives a vehicle that has failed its test and about which he intends to appeal is in a vulnerable position. He said:
he may be leaving himself open to a charge of driving an unroadworthy vehicle or a much more serious charge if he is involved in a road accident. This is a decision for the individual. The insurance position may be compromised by driving a failed vehicle if it is shown that it was seriously defective thus defaulting on the conditions of the insurance policy. However, the legal requirement for insurance is cover for third party risks and this cover remains in force although the insurers may decide to recover any settlement from the defaulting driver. Thus financial risk is borne by the driver and he alone is compromised by his actions.

I challenge the last part of the letter which says that the driver alone is compromised by his actions. Surely that is not the case. By definition, that man is driving a car that has been found by a testing station to be unsatisfactory and possibly dangerous. Testers can tell of cars on which brakes were so defective that the pedal would go right down to the floor without having any effect on the car. Regrettably, cases of that sort are fairly common. Clearly such a situation is dangerous to the driver, but it is also dangerous to all other road users and to pedestrians. Other people are compromised by the actions of that motorist.
What is the legal position here and in regard to appeals certificates? The Department specifically warns against motorists seeking to repair alleged defects. It says that vehicles should not be repaired before the appeal has been considered. But what is the Department's advice for the motorist in the meantime? Should be use his car or not? This is an important question on which the motoring Press has been pressing the Department of Transport and its predecessor, the Department of the Environment. This debate would be an appropriate time for the Government to give us guidance.
The easiest thing to do in road safety is to advocate a whole new range of regulations. I have not sought to do that. I believe that it is important that the road safety case for the driver looking after his own car should be got over more forcefully and better than at present. We cannot be satisfied with the sort of results that we are getting. Each year more than 4 million cars—about 35 per cent.—fail the MOT test. That is the 1975 figure, and I imagine that the 1976 figure was about the same, but this is the level before the new regulations come into force.
Many of the failures are due to serious defects. Faulty brakes account for 21 per cent. of failures, 18 per cent. of the failures are caused by faulty steering, and faulty lights and tyres account for 7 per cent. and 6 per cent. of failures respectively. The evidence is that many cars on the road are not in a roadworthy condition, and some are plain dangerous.
Last summer the AA conducted a survey, separate from the MOT test, in my home area, the West Midlands—the heart of the British motoring industry.


It showed that 38 per cent. of cars tested had worn or damaged tyres, 36 per cent. had defective lights and 42 per cent. displayed what was called uneven braking tendencies. They were spot checks and probably present a more accurate picture than the MOT test, for which motorists often repair their vehicles.
Our road safety strategy should be first to improve training and driving skills with such schemes as the Institute of Advanced Motorists' test and the RAC's ACU scheme for motor cyclists, and to try to get home the message that it makes sense for a motorist to look after his car and to have it serviced regularly. Some people say that advertising and publicity do little in this direction, but I do not accept that view. I believe that this is something we must try to do more vigorously than we have done in the past.
The regulations which we are discussing are important, and I hope that their importance and their effect will have been emphasised by this debate. I hope, above all, that no one will believe that the MOT test by itself is a guarantee of safety. It is not, and the individual motorist remains responsible for ensuring the roadworthiness of his own vehicle.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has once again confirmed my impression that he is thoroughly enjoying his rôle as Opposition spokesman on transport matters. He spoke tonight in a vein slightly different from that which he adopted on the last occasion, when we discussed cherished number plates. He was not quite so abrasive, not quite so bitter, but was very enjoyable to hear, and he made a series of constructive proposals. As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was automatically ticking off in my mind three of the points which I hoped to make, but I shall take up at least one or two others.
I shall be brief, although there seems little contest from my own Benches—would that it was always so—and I shall first take up the question of guidance and information. When I see a substantial document such as these new regulations, especially when it runs to 36 pages or so, I always look for conclusions and recommendations. I am sure

that it would be useful for the local garage to have conclusions and recommendations accompanying the regulations. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of information to the public. Information to the trade is important too.
I take it that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that some sort of advice or "garage guide" on the new regulations will be made available to those who will have to conduct the tests. My hon. Friend will have to do it within a limited budget. It is all very well to ask that the public should be told more, but at a time of intense restraint on Government spending not all that we hope for may be done. There should, however, be a garage guide and a public guide, so that the public would know what they were entitled to and what was expected of them, and the garage could refer to it.
Next, I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the test certificate is a certificate of roadworthiness as at that date—not the day afterwards, the week afterwards, the month afterwards or the year afterwards. Somewhere in Hansard there is a report of a debate about 10 years ago in which I proudly proclaimed that I was the owner of three motor cars. I bought the last one for £14. It had a current MOT certificate. I took it to the Liverpool depot, and it turned out to be literally a death trap, although at the auction it was said to have a current certificate of roadworthiness.
The point which I made then I make again now: a current MOT certificate is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Everyone knows that, but it seems that a good many people still buy cars in one way or another with three months, six months or more to go on the MOT certificate, assuming that they are roadworthy vehicles.
I suggest that at some time the Government—a Government of either party, although I do not expect one from the Conservatives just yet, or even for a long time—will have to say that ownership of a vehicle may change only if it has an MOT certificate of limited validity—say, one month instead of 12 months or whatever it may be. That in itself would not avoid the possibility of


someone having an MOT test certificate on Monday and then having something seriously wrong with his car on Tuesday or Wednesday, but it would at least limit the effective period.

Dr. Alan Glyn: That is a very good point. As the hon. Gentleman says, many motorists buy a car and, because the test certificate still has 11 months to run, they assume that they can run it safely for 11 months. Would not the easiest way to overcome that be for the insurance companies to use their influence to have the MOT certificate stamped "This is valid only on the day of issue, and motorists are advised accordingly"? Second, as to the conditions which should be fulfilled, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is there any reason why those conditions should not be given to the motorist with his log book?

Mr. Ogden: Those are two excellent suggestions, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the insurance companies. If the insurers were to use their power and influence, in their own protection as well as that of their clients, I think that a lot of the problems facing the Department could be alleviated. Pressure from the insurance companies themselves can be very beneficial. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider seriously the hon. Gentleman's two excellent suggestions. They would not obviate the problem, but they would help to reduce it.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked that we should have a discussion about MOT test repairs. That is a wider issue, but it comes directly from the regulations.
More and more frequently, when I take my old bangers for their MOT tests I find that parts are not repaired but are replaced. With the limited range of tests undertaken, replacements are not too difficult. Car manufacturers are really car assemblers, and car repairers are really car parts replacers. It is almost impossible to find someone to repair a dynamo, for instance. One has to buy a new one, unless one is prepared to go hunting round scrap yards. It is almost impossible to find a distributor head.

Perhaps a Minister who is involved in the Scotland and Wales Bill—who will probably have little to do during the later stages of that Bill—might consider asking the Motor Agents Association and the Traders to have talks with his Department to see whether there is a way, in the design, repairing or servicing of motor cars, to ensure that it is not necessary to acquire an expensive part in order to repair a small item. That would restore to repairers their status and would be of great value.
The Prayer has served a useful purpose. We shall have done a good job if information can be given to the public.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I shall refer to only one or two matters involved in Statutory Instrument No. 1977 which do not appear to be clear. Regulation 9(2) refers to the course of instruction which must be taken by an authorised examiner. It states:
After the coming into operation of these Regulations a person shall not be authorised for the first time, in pursuance of arrangements made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) of this Regulation, to carry out or personally supervise examinations and to sign test certificates unless he has undergone a course of instruction, approved by the Secretary of State, in the carrying out of examinations.
On the face of it, the Secretary of State could alter those requirements at any time. May we have an assurance that the rules of the game will not be altered in the middle of the game and that an authorised examiner will not be told that, although he has taken a course that was prescribed at the time, the rules have changed and he is no longer qualified?
I have no proposal on how one can provide against that possibility other than to suggest that the Minister gives an assurance that the rules will not be changed so as to disqualify a man who has previously been qualified. An examiner should go through a course of instruction, and I agree with the intention of the provision, but it is drawn in a manner which could lead to unfairness to those who are qualified.
I regard Regulation 10(2) as unintelligible. Perhaps there is meaning behind it, but it contains so many cross-references that I cannot understand it. I think that it means that someone who tests a vehicle to see that it comes within


the terms of the regulations and who passes it, is not a criminal if it does not come within the regulations. I should like an explanation of that provision.
The last regulation, No. 32, states:
Provided that this Regulation does not apply to any of the following islands, namely, the Isle of Wight, the islands of Arran, Bute, Great Cumbrae, Islay, Lewis, Mainland (Orkney), Mainland (Shetland), Mull, North Uist and Skye.
Some places are missing from the list. The Minister will perhaps confirm that the islands mentioned are those where there are test stations. Or are they the islands where ther are no test stations, so that if one has a car on those islands and one cannot take it to and fro, it can run on those islands without being tested? I am not clear whether these are the islands where it is not necessary to have a car tested or whether they are the islands where it is necessary to have a car tested. The Isles of Scilly are not mentioned.
I turn finally, to the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 11 states:
Electrically-propelled goods vehicles are included in the list of vehicles exempted from the test.
We are referred to Regulation 30(9). There is no Regulation 30(9). I think it means—again, I ask the Minister to confirm this—Regulation 30(p), because that seems to be the only one that fits the Explanatory Note.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I must declare a slight interest in that I have been brought up all my life with garages around me. My father ran a garage all his working life. My brother now runs a garage. I therefore have had some first-hand connection with the MOT test and with the motor trade.
My first point concerns the failure of the extension of the test. My second point is probably a root complaint about the way the test works.
I do not believe that garages should be able to test cars that are their own property. I make that point absolutely seriously. Comment has been made about a car which had a certificate valid for 11 months but which was in a not very roadworthy condition. Cars do not suddenly rust out in 28 days. The steering of a car does not suddenly fail

in 28 days, unless the owner is very unlucky. Tyres do not suddenly wear out in 28 days, unless the driver has been driving like a maniac.
In my constituency and in surrounding constituencies where I have sonic knowledge of what has happened—I have no wish to mention individual cases—there has over the years been a substantial number of garages that have quite rightly—I was involved in one of these cases—had their right to conduct the MOT test withdrawn. I believe that the right to test was withdrawn from those garages because they had stretched a point a little.
The House would be naive if it were to believe that every aspect of the MOT test can be divided into clear white "pass" and clear black "fail". I have known my brother ask the other skilled mechanic at his garage—there are only two of them—to look at some part of a car and to give his opinion, to say whether it would be right to pass the car. In such cases the mechanics have not known; the car has been on the borderline. There must by definition be a borderline somewhere.
I suspect that the reason why some cars for which a certificate valid for 11 months was in existence have been found to be in a ropy condition was that the owner of the car was a garage owner. The 1100 is the most notorious of all cars. The 1100 can look very respectable on the outside and yet be a bag of rust underneath.
With a valid MOT certificate, secondhand or eighth-hand, an 1100 is worth between £250 and £300. Without an MOT certificate, it is worth £20 down at the scrap yard. What would do more than anything else to remove the problems now experienced with the test would be the introduction of a system whereby a garage, if it was the owner of a car, could not test the car and issue itself with an MOT certificate for the car. If the garage owner had a mate down the road who was foolish enough to co-operate with him, his mate would want his head examined; and, as his mate would be making no money out of the transaction, I cannot believe that he would be as willing to extend his co-operation.
I am disappointed that other matters have been omitted from the test. I am concerned about the thermo-dynamic


efficiency of motor cars. We live in a cruel world in respect of the cost of fuel. Maybe the Government thought that the problems were too great, but I should have liked to see some form of efficiency audit for the cars that are given an MOT test. An exhaust gas analysis is not so very difficult. All that is necessary is to check the carbon monoxide content. Provided that it is within a certain range, there is the clearest indication that the car is approaching relative efficiency.
Those who carry out the MOT test learn that, no matter how much legislation is in force, there are always some who will be on the fiddle. I have seen a car come in for an MOT test with blue wheels, and it has been failed for bad tyres. The owner has taken it away and half an hour later it is brought back, and by magic it has green wheels bearing four new tyres. This has happened to my brother. What is he supposed to do in that event? Clearly the owner had gone to a friend and swapped wheels for 20 minutes. The owner may have painted the wheels and put on new tyres, but that would be an achievement in 20 minutes. I suspect that the wheels had been borrowed from a friend for a short time.
When that happened to my brother, he scratched his head and took the view that at the moment the car was satisfactory and that it was not his concern what was done to it when it left the garage. I hope that my brother will not lose his licence as a result of this disclosure.
The MOT test has done a great deal to improve safety, and it ill becomes the public generally to criticise the garages that administer it. Equally, it is not right to criticise Ministers for not doing this, that and the other when the House is not ready to deal with seat belt legislation, which would make an enormous contribution to saving lives on the roads. Equally, it is not ready to make a real reform of the drink and driving laws, which is surely required and could make an enormous contribution to the saving of lives.
The MOT test is largely accepted. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) talked so much about appeals. I took up the matter over the weekend. In the small circle within which I discussed the

matter, it seemed that an appeal is a rare event. If a car fails the test, it is often taken across town to another garage which has a reputation for being easier. If the car fails at that garage, it is usually accepted that it is a car that will not pass the test, although that is not always accepted.
Indeed, the test has not always been accepted. My father collected two black eyes while explaining to constituents that their cars were write-offs whereas they thought that they had something that would virtually last a lifetime.
Some of my points are jocular, but I ask the Minister to concentrate his mind on whether garages should be allowed to test their own cars. If he checks the statistics, he will find that the vast bulk of disqualifications have involved cars in the ownership of testing garages. I think that the Minister could do more to improve the test. After all, we all want to improve the test so as to make the roads safer for our constituents and their neighbours. More could be done in that direction than anything else by banning, the practice of garages testing cars that they own.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for his technical expertise. I am at a disadvantage in that he has taken some of the points I wished to make.
I must first express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for giving us the opportunity, although by a curious means, to support this measure. It must strike members of the public as odd, as it struck me as being exceedingly odd, that if one wishes to support something it is necessary to table a motion against the proposition one wishes to support. In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I was trying to find a defect in the regulations on which to hang the Prayer. Indeed, my right hon. Friend alighted upon the absence of Regulation 30(9). I join him in supposing that the reference is to Regulation 30(p).
I should like to probe the Minister's thinking on the authorisation of examiners, and in particular the designation of councils. We have had a bit of trouble over


the proposed West Midlands County Council Bill, which included, amongst other encroachments of the individual's sphere of operations, the proposal that the council should set up garage services, including testing stations. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has been in correspondence with the Minister about this. He has certainly had trouble over the matter in his constituency.
What is the Minister's policy on designation of councils for this purpose? More particularly, what is his view about the authorisation of examiners? We have heard that there were proposals to reduce the number of testing stations, regardless of the convenience of the public and regardless of the accessibility of the stations. I hope that when he seeks our support for the regulations the Minister will be able to reveal something of what is in his mind.
On that point I must refer the Minister to some of the language in Regulation 9(2) about the course of instruction:
in pursuance of arrangements made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b)",
which did not quite seem to tie in, as I read it. The hon. Gentleman may be able to assure me that it is correctly stated.
While on the subject of gobbledegook I refer to Regulation 11(3), which says that a request for an examination may be made by telephone, in person or in writing. That seems to dot too many i's and cross too many t's. The imagination boggles when one wonders how a request could be made in any other way. One must congratulate the draftsman on being so comprehensive.

Mr. Roger Moate: It could be by extrasensory perception.

Mr. Miller: There are still serious difficulties, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). One concerns the supply of adequate manuals to garages. We read in the February issue of the magazine of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that at the date of that magazine's publication the manuals had not been received by the garages because there has been difficulties at the printers. Some legal issues may arise over this interim period where no manuals have been issued. I hope that the Minister can

assure us that any special difficulties arising in that period have been dealt with in the light of the manuals' absence.
The magazine also makes the serious point that many cars are still failing the test. A valid ground for praying against the regulations would be that there is no good reason why there should be no test until three years after a car is registered. I think that a car should be tested as it leaves the manufacturer, because we hear of many people receiving cars that are faulty on delivery.

Mr. Ogden: It is not only a question of testing when the car leaves the manufacturer. The distributor also has a responsibility. The majority of faults are found by the distributor or retailer as the cars go out.

Mr. Miller: I accept the proposition that a certificate should be issued when the vehicle leaves the distributor rather than when it leaves the manufacturer, but certainly it must be done before the vehicle is on the road in the hands of the new owner. I gladly support my hon. Friend on that.
I believe that there should be an initial test and that thereafter we should consider moving to an annual test. There is no sufficient reason for a gap of three years, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has done so much to elucidate the situation about written-off cars which are then put back on to the road. An initial test might be one way of getting at cars which are found on inspection to be undrivable or drivable without any degree of safety—in other words, the problem vehicles. I personally experienced a situation in which I was surprised to see my own car, which had been written off in an accident, preceding me on the road two months later, with a proud new owner at the wheel totally unaware of what had happened earlier to the vehicle.
There has been opposition to the regulations from the motoring organisations, but I am glad to say that the motor manufacturers have expressed their support for the regulations. Members of the public find it difficult to understand the failure of components within the three-year period, which is another argument for more frequent testing when that becomes more feasible.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the MOT test takes place after a car is three years old and thereafter annually?

Mr. Miller: Yes, I appreciate that, but I am referring to tests beginning when a car is first issued and continuing annually until the existing annual inspection arrangement starts. I appreciate that there may be difficulty in coping with numbers.
I do not know whether the Minister has considered the matter, but it is a common experience that exhaust pipes fall off vehicles after only 12 or 18 months on the road, depending on road conditions. When one takes up these matters with component manufacturers, they say "We could easily make exhaust pipes that would last longer, but the manufacturers will not pay us to do so". When one approaches the manufacturers, they say "Mrs. So-and-So, who lives in the country and drives only 3,000 miles a year, does not need an exhaust pipe that lasts that long", whereas, of course, we all know that the commercial traveller who travels 40,000 miles a year expects to get through an exhaust pipe after only nine months. I believe that there is need for more frequent inspection and that we need to awaken the public conscience to demand a higher standard of components on some vehicles.
The nuisance caused by noise and emissions from faulty exhausts is considerable, and it is not only heavy lorries that offend in this respect.
I support the introduction of the regulations, but I beg the Minister to give us guidance about the future of testing stations, instructions to examiners and the possibility of extending the inspection of vehicles to include an initial inspection and annual inspection thereafter.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to follow up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), but before I do so I should like to mention the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I hope that the practical knowledge that lay behind the hon. Gentleman's speech will not lead to his brother losing his licence as a vehicle tester.
What concerns me a little about the regulations is that authorisations are issued under Regulation 8 but that under Regulation 26 the Minister has power to withdraw such authorisations and there is no right of appeal to any independent body. Is the Minister satisfied that justice is done to a garage which might have lost its authorisation for technical reasons and which might have legtimate grounds for objection? Have there been objections to this procedure? Does the Minister feel it is right that there should be no independent right of appeal on a matter which could seriously affect the business of a reputable garage?
The MOT test is an important feature of the life of a motorist, whether he owns one car or whether he owns a fleet, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). The test is a matter of great importance. It is vital to ensure that it is widely respected and that the motorist believes that it is doing a good job before we extend it—certainly before we extend it to annual testing from the time when a car is new as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch suggested. I believe that the test is a good thing. It must have done much to get some old bangers off the road. It is a source of irritation to many motorists and an additional expense at a time when the motorist is heavily burdened by massively increasing costs.
The test is also the cause of scepticism because people know that it is possible to get an MOT test certificate from less reputable garages in respect of a car that may be below standard. When the public are aware of that, their scepticism and dislike of regulations are increased. It is incumbent upon the Department of Transport constantly to prove the case for the test. For that reason I agree with a great deal of what the AA had to say in the circular which it has sent to hon. Members, although I disagree with its conclusion that we should object to this extension of testing. I agree with much of what it says. For example, it says that
there is sufficient evidence seriously to doubt the value of the annual testing scheme and its effect on safety.
The AA is an organisation which we should take seriously. It is never afraid to go out on a limb, even with its own members, when it feels that a serious


issue of road safety is involved. A good example was its support for legislation aimed at making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. That is not something that would automatically commend itself to all members of the AA. Because the AA believed that such a step was in the interests of road safety, it campaigned for it. When an organisation like this casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of the MOT test, we should listen with care.
In the circular, the AA makes the point that
the interests of road safety are not served by the creation of a false sense of security.
The test often does just that. A person gets a certificate, and even though he may know two or three months later that the vehicle is unsafe he feels that he can drive it for another nine months or so until the certificate expires.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I agree that the views of the AA, of which I am a member, should be treated with seriousness. When I read the circular, it gave me the impression that the AA wanted the whole of the MOT test to be scrapped. I accept that one point it was making was that it gave a false sense of security to a motorist who has a certificate.

Mr. Moate: To be fair, the AA concludes with a clear statement of its position, saying:
In the view of the Association, the current proposals should be rejected—
in other words, the test should be left as it is—
and a thorough investigation should be set up to establish the true value of the annual testing scheme.
The real danger is that once these things become institutionalised it is almost impossible to dislodge them. Even if it were proved that the test was ineffective, it would be hard to eliminate it.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman's argument about institutionalisation surely applies equally to the AA. I am a member of the AA. I had a choice of two organisations to join; one had a blue badge and the other a yellow one. I chose the yellow badge because it is my party's colour. The hon. Gentleman says that the AA will oppose its own mem-

bers if it thinks it right to do so. It is extremely difficult to persuade the AA by resolution at an annual general meeting to consider anything in opposition to AA policy. Institutionalisation applies there. The official view of the AA is that we should go no further than these regulations.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is describing the problem of all establishments, and I largely concur with what he has said. It is incumbent on the Department constantly to re-prove the case for the test. Certainly, before we make further extension and increases in fee it must be clearly established that the test is doing a good job, that the regulations are being applied toughly and that a lot of people are not getting away with unscrupulous practices which undermine the operation.
Many dangerous vehicles have been driven off the road, and that is sufficient evidence to me that the tests have done a first-class job. One knows personally of people who have got rid of a dangerous vehicle because of a forthcoming test. Such personal experience is enough for me to want to continue the test. The high failure rate attributed to many of the new conditions is to me further evidence of the strength of the case for extending the test to cover this point.
I welcome the application of the test to seat belts. We considered the accident statistics on the seat belts Bill last Session, and we know that the failure of seat belts to operate effectively is a major cause of casualties. Therefore, it must be right that they should be tested. It is extraordinary, however, that we should now have regulations insisting that seat belts should be installed, properly maintained and inspected and yet the Government, who thought the matter important enough to introduce a Bill—which, sadly, failed—in the last Session, have not done so this Session. The fact that 1,000 lives could be saved each year by the compulsory wearing of seat belts makes these regulations seem puny and pitiful.
I urge the Government to bring back the seat belts Bill, and to do so mighty fast. As the Minister's predecessor said last Session, it was the most important Bill that the Government could introduce to reduce the casualty rate on the roads. I believe it right that the House should


have taken the opportunity to debate regulations of immense importance to motorists.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: There is not much more one can say about the regulations, except to remind the Minister, as I remind my colleagues, that it is not a lack of statute law which sometimes means that we do not have the best legal system: it is the ability to enforce that law. Although I welcome these regulations, as I welcomed the original concept of a test, the effectiveness of the regulations or of the manual to be sent to authorised examiners will depend on the quality of those who carry out the test.
We know that an MOT test certificate is a commercial document. Whereas it may satisfy the owner of a vehicle that his vehicle is safe, it will also help anyone to sell a second-hand vehicle. Because we know that to be the case, we have to appreciate that there is wide disparity in the quality of examinations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, MOT test certificates have been issued in respect of vehicles which were grossly unroadworthy and extremely dangerous.
I concentrate my remarks, therefore, on the question of who shall test the examiners. I ask the Minister to say a little more about the course of instruction referred to in Regulation 9 on page 7. Exactly what sort of course of instruction has the Department in mind? How long is it to last, and where is it to be carried out? I should be very uneasy if I found that the course of instruction ended up by being some form of "in house" testing. I should like to think that the various Ministry vehicle testing establishments might serve as schools for the instruction so that we might all know that those who carried out the tests and thus issued the test certificates or failed vehicles really could claim the sort of knowledge which we all suppose them to have when we take in our vehicles to be examined.
I am not very happy about the existing penalties for authorised examiners who prove to be guilty of giving certificates for vehicles which should not have passed the test. I am sure that the Minister is

as concerned as any of us when he reads of a person who has hawked his vehicle from one garage to another until finally he has got an MOT test certificate. No matter how good the regulations are, that practice will not end until the quality of examiners throughout the country, as near as that is possible—I recognise that there will always be loopholes—has been raised to the highest possible level.
That leads me on to the question of the Ministry inspection of authorised examiners, as outlined in Regulation 24, on page 16. I wonder whether the Department intends to increase the number of Ministry inspectors to ensure that this is a really serious sanction against examiners who would treat their job without the responsibility that it requires, and, if so, whether the Minister can say how many more inspectors he intends to put in the field to ensure that this comes about. Will he also say how many premises are inspected in one year by his examiners? Equally, in turn, will there be some form of inspection of the examiners themselves as well as of their premises? I can find no reference to that in Regulation 24.
I come finally to the appeal which a vehicle owner has against a failure in an MOT test. I have a constituent who has felt aggrieved about such a case for three years. He sends me a great many letters on the subject, and on one occasion I raised the matter on the Adjournment. His view is that, although he was granted an appeal against the failure of his vehicle in the test, those who carried out the appeal were not qualified to do the work that they were designated to do. I am not in a position to say whether he is strictly correct, but it does not seem adequate that the appeal, such as it is now, should consist of the same vehicle being taken, perhaps to another garage, to be tested without any special care being taken to prove that those who carry out the appeal test are more qualified than the original examiners.
If the enforcing of the regulations will make them effective, by the same token the belief of the public in their fairness will also be an important consideration in making the whole system work better than it does now.
I would be churlish if I did not congratulate the Government on looking at


MOT testing in the way they have done. Figures produced by ROSPA show that there has been a greater failure rate since the new regulations were introduced. That indicates that they are effective. I hope that the Government will take my remarks as comments rather than criticisms.

11.16 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be very brief. The Minister has kindly indicated that I may raise a couple of points. I wish to reinforce the point which has been made that the MOT certificate should be endorsed showing that it is valid only on the day it is issued. In that way motorists buying cars would realise that it was absolutely essential that some very brief form of qualification necessary for the MOT should be given to the motorist with the log book or test certificate.
It is also important that there should be a proper method of appeal for testing stations. I had one really bad case, and I do not think that this could be dealt with satisfactorily under the new regulations. It is a very serious thing if the right to test is taken away.
I am not at all happy with the three-year exemption period for new cars. Things can go wrong with cars on production lines. When a car is sold by a bona fide distributor there should be a way of making sure that that car is really roadworthy, even though no fault has been detected on the production line.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I shall try to reply to some of the points that have been raised tonight. I apologise to hon. Members that I cannot cover all the issues raised, but I will try to write to those whose points I do not get around to answering.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said that relatively little effort had been put into publicising the new regulations and that the public seemed unaware of the new situation. I deny that little effort has been put into it. We have tried to publicise the new regulations as well as we could. However, I accept that it takes the public time to get used to the new situation. We have, nevertheless, tried to ram the situation home.
The point was raised about the tester's manual. I apologise for the fact that due to a printing hold-up there was a delay in producing it. But long before the new regulations came into force garages had a provisional manual which was virtually identical to the final manual, except that it did not have such glossy pictures. I do not think that there has been any problem there in practice.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield also raised the question of not repairing cars while an appeal is pending. It is impossible to assess the merits of the appeal if the condition of the car has been altered in the interim period. The best advice one can give is that a motorist should not drive his car away until it has been found to be roadworthy. The hon. Member also mentioned the point about driving away unroadworthy vehicles, and I agree that the owner of the car is compromised, as are the wider public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) made a number of points. I should like to think about them and also about the similar issues raised by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). I will note them but will not comment any further this evening.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised four detailed points with his usual care. I would say that we have won on three and lost on one, and that this is not a bad score. It is certainly not intended to withdraw the nomination of testers retrospectively, and I give the assurance that people who pass the new test will remain qualified as testers in that sense.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not understand Regulation 10(2). I do not always understand these regulations terribly well either. This regulation, however, means that the standards in the test apply to vehicles at all times under the Construction and Use Regulations, and, therefore, while being tested —and only while being tested—they must be exempt so that the tester does not make himself liable for prosecution.
The islands named are those where exemption does not apply. The other islands, which have no convenient or regular vehicle access to the mainland, are exempted from testing. I must confess a small defeat. The figure "30(9)" should read "30(p)".
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a very interesting question about the testing of cars on property owned by the garage. The situation is that it is not feasible to prohibit this in the way that he suggests. It is always easy to evade that sort of situation. We have looked at it, but over the years we have not found a satisfactory answer to the problem of enforcement, which, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, is an important aspect.
The hon. Member referred to the analysis of exhaust gases. We have considered this too. A test in idle conditions would not be representative of normal road conditions, and we do not think that that would be a suitable addition to the test.

Mr. Hal Miller: Surely some motor manufacturers have already installed a test of exhaust gases on rolling roads.

Mr. Horam: I am not familiar with that. Perhaps I should look into it. On our present evidence, however, we do not think that this is something that could be done by the ordinary run-of-the-mill garage.
The hon. Member for Truro raised the question of taking wheels on and off, and so forth. The tester is responsible for testing what is put before him, and if there is cheating in what is put before him it cannot be his responsibility. That is something on which it is very hard to check completely.

Mr. Penhaligon: I accept as valid comment what the Minister said about my minor points. Why is it so difficult, however, to pass a regulation providing that a garage cannot test its own cars? That seems relatively simple. It simply needs a law saying that a garage does not have the right to issue an MOT certificate for its own vehicle. When a certificate is issued, it must bear the name of the vehicle owner. The garage could put a fictitious name on the certificate, but that would be fraud and for that the garage could be prosecuted. Therefore, what is the difficulty?

Mr. Horam: My advice is that it is extremely difficult to enforce such a rule. We have looked at the matter and found this to be a problem. I will look at it again. Perhaps I may write to the hon.

Member on the subject, if that would help.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) asked about our policy on the designating of stations. There are about 17,000 stations. Certainly a council which met all the requirements would be designated. We would encourage that. There is no change in policy as regards the number of stations we would want. It is important for there to be as many stations as possible for the convenience of the public.
A question was asked about the rights of appeal of garages against withdrawal by the Secretary of State of authorisation to carry out tests. These rights have remained the same since the introduction of the testing scheme in 1961.
Occasionally the question of the apparent lack of impartiality by an authority is raised. The existing arrangements have been the subject of two cases investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who on both occasions said that there were no grounds for criticism of the appeal procedure. In practice, the examiner has ample opportunity to state his case both before and after the final notice of withdrawal. All appeals are to the Secretary of State, who delegates consideration to the head of the vehicle inspection division at the Department's headquarters. We are not aware of any general feeling of dissatisfaction over the years about the procedure.
I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about seat belts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider question of the AA's views which, I understand, have been circulated to hon. Members.
There is a continual need to justify a test of this kind. The test was introduced in 1961 as a result of considerable public concern over the general conditions of cars on the roads. The most valuable and immediate effect of the test was to remove many old bangers from the roads. It also made the public aware of safety and the benefit of car maintenance.
We still find that over 30 per cent. of cars fail the test, even though there is a pre-notified check of specified items. The fact that the failure rate is so high in the restricted conditions of the test, is


justification for continuing to test cars in this way.

Mr. Craigen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Horam: No. I have only two minutes left. I must finish by 11.29. I do not know what the Scottish aspects are.
The MOT test is only one of a number of general road safety measures that were introduced in 1961. Therefore, it has some relevance to the fact that the road accident rate for private cars dropped by 45 per cent. between 1961 and 1975. We and, indeed, the AA should reflect on that fact.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to say that the test was no guarantee of safety. The individual ultimately is responsible for the condition of his car. However, although we cannot say by how much, we believe that this measure has helped to prevent many accidents over the years. In the same way, I think that seat belts would prevent many accidents if they were made compulsory.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Even more.

Mr. Horam: Perhaps even more. The MOT test has been a major contributory factor to an excellent record of road safety.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked me several questions. I am afraid that he put them so rapidly, just before I was about to speak, that I did not take them all down. I shall write to him on the detailed points that he made.
The testing course for garage hands lasts for one day at the Government testing station. The instructors are the Department's examiners. They deal with all the basic questions of the method of testing—the practical aspects, the paper work and so on. We have talked about the additional items which are being tested from 1st January. I think that they will form on important addition to the effectiveness of the test. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler: As I said at the beginning, we do not want to press this matter to a Division. We have had a constructive debate. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (ISLE OF GRAIN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: I am grateful to you Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the problem of the hardship caused to my constituents in this dispute. I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity of raising the issue at a relatively civilised hour; I have fared much better than have many of my hon. Friends in recent weeks.
It is my intention to try to demonstrate how the unemployment benefit system can, on occasions, be cumbersome and inefficient, and how its shortcomings can lead to considerable hardship for the people involved.
The events at the Isle of Grain power station, involving the employees of the sub-contractor Babcock and Wilcox, clearly demonstrate the failings of the system and the serious circumstances that have caused tremendous suffering to my constituents and those of hon. Members for neighbouring areas.
I do not intend to deal with the merits of the dispute or of the unemployment claims, but in order to put the issue in perspective, I must go over the timetable and the facts.
In April, at the Isle of Grain, there was a dispute between Babcock and Wilcox and its employees over the firm's refusal to supply protective clothing for employees working with a substance known as Rocksil. Between 27th May and 15th June, 28 men were dismissed for refusing to work with the substance without protective clothing. On 15th June, there was a general withdrawal of labour by the trade unions involved with the firm.
On 30th June, the firm dismissed all 928 men employed on the site. In the meantime, an investigation by the Factory Inspectorate concluded, on 13th May, that Rocksil was an irritant, and, following a visit by the industrial hygiene unit on 21st June, an order was made on 1st July that overalls should be provided for workers engaged in dealing with Rocksil. Despite that, the dispute continued; first,


over the payment for the overalls and, secondly, on a much wider issue.
Claims for unemployment benefit were submitted by the men almost immediately and they were refused on 6th July because then it was claimed that they had been involved in an industrial dispute. Appeals were lodged within 21 days of that decision by solicitors acting on behalf of the men and a local tribunal was held on 22nd September—eight weeks after the original claims had been made. That inquiry was adjourned because it was impossible to arrive at a decision and hear all the evidence on one day. It was not reconvened until 10th November—one month and three weeks later. This is one point on which the people involved deserve an explanation. As far as I can ascertain, the people who served on that tribunal were not involved with any other tribunals during those free weeks, so I can see no reason for the delay.
The tribunal eventually upheld the claim for benefit on the ground that the men were involved in a safety dispute and not an industrial dispute. The decision was notified by the tribunal on 17th November and it was not until 8th December—the last possible day for an appeal to be made—that the insurance officer submitted an appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners. The hearing has been fixed for 24th February—eight months after the claims were originally made. During that time, the men have received no unemployment benefit.
I have been told that the hearing was fixed for 24th February because this is a special and urgent case. Can the Minister tell me how much longer we should have had to wait if it had not been a special case? What is the general delay in such appeals?
There is another aspect to the appeal; 170 men who submitted claims did not have them dealt with by the union solicitors and were not advised of the decision on the claim until 10 December. Can the Minister explain why that happened?
The dispute was resolved eventually and there was an agreement on a return to work between Babcock and Wilcox and the trade unions involved. That agreement was reached on 17th December, but, unfortunately, a power station site is not the same as a factory. If it

were, the men could have returned to work that day, or after the weekend, but when a power station site has been closed for a long period a lot of safety work has to be done before the men can go back. There has to be a phased return to work, and this was achieved between 4th and 17th January.
The fact that the delay was due solely to the physical conditions on the site seems to have been ignored by the insurance officer, who maintained his refusal to grant unemployment benefit up to 15th January and informed the men that they could submit claims from 17th January—the day by which all the men who were returning had gone back. I would have thought that in the circumstances there was a case for arriving at some compromise in the case of these men, who were no longer involved in the dispute but were not entitled to benefit.
Whatever the merits of the dispute and whatever the argument whether or not it was an industrial dispute, it can be claimed that by 17th December the dispute was over. But there were 400 men who were not re-employed because there was an agreement that the labour force employed by Babcock and Wilcox would be reduced. But they were denied benefit payment up to 17th January, despite the fact that they were in receipt of dismissal notices from the company dated 10th January. That is one of the most farcical parts of this fiasco.
It is not possible in a short debate to deal with all the cases that have come to my attention and to the attention of other hon. Members involving hardship for these people, but I am sure that we can supply the Minister with quite a few cases of suffering and hardship. These men were denied not only unemployment benefit but social security, except at a reduced level for their dependants. For those living alone there was no benefit. In cases where both the father and the son were employed by the same firm and the mother was engaged in part-time work which took her above the supplementary benefit level the family were denied any extra benefit, and all three adults had to live on the part-time earnings of the mother. That was a situation more reminiscent of the family means test of the 1920s and 1930s than of a sophisticated social security system that we claim to have today.
We cannot ignore the fact that in this dispute, unlike many industrial disputes, the period involved was not very short. People can be asked to make sacrifices over a couple of weeks, when they are living on reduced benefits. They can defer the purchase of certain items and draw on their savings. But this situation lasted for seven months, for which time the people concerned could not, by any stretch of the imagination, maintain a decent standard of living. They were forced to live at a level below that which the State has decreed is the minimum subsistence level.
There is in the Social Security Act a certain Section 11, which deals with hardship and which gives power to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to make payments to people on grounds of hardship, notwithstanding anything else contained in that Act which disqualifies them. It appears that that section was hardly used in the case of the men to whom I am referring. At no time was any effort made to advise them of their rights under Section 11. I want the Minister to tell us not only how that section of the Act is used but how it can be applied in cases such as this.
Those who received supplementary benefit in respect of their relatives were in many cases disqualified from benefit for six weeks partly because their earnings had been paid by the firm, but those earnings included a large measure of holiday pay, which in the construction industry is a form of enforced savings. Had that money been saved by the men it would have been regarded by the DHSS as capital and would not have been taken into account in the calculations for supplementary benefit. We need to make a fairer dividing line between capital and income than seems to have been the case in this dispute.
In this dispute the national insurance system has failed in its role of providing financial support for those in need. It has proved a cumbersome and ineffective fiasco, which has condemned hundreds of men and their families, in my constituency and other constituencies, to a long period of hardship. It has made them, understandably, feel bitter and resentful.
On 11th January, at Question Time, I raised the question of delays in settling

appeals for unemployment benefit in hardship cases and I received the following reply:
In general, I am not aware of any delay in settling appeals which is causing people to suffer unduly."—[Official Report, 11th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 1241–2.]
Those words will have a very hollow ring for the 900 men involved in the dispute.
I believe that there were unacceptable and unjustifiable delays, first, in reconvening the adjourned local tribunal—which took many weeks from the date of the adjournment—secondly, in the time taken by the insurance officer to decide on his appeal—he waited until the last possible day to lodge it—and, thirdly, in the time up to the hearing before the Commissioners—eight months.
I do not believe that the degree of urgency justified by the number of people involved and the hardship that they were suffering was properly recognised. If it was, I dread to think of what happens in cases where no urgency is applied.
The decision to withhold benefit after the agreement to return to work on 17th December was a cruel and unjustifiable addition to the men's problems, and one in which the appeal machinery was not really relevant, because of the time factors involved. Since the men were involved in a dispute over their original claim, they could hardly be expected to lodge another appeal and go through all the machinery over the extra two weeks for which they were denied benefit.
The delay in return to work was, as I said, due entirely to the site conditions, and, irrespective of what view was taken of the nature of the dispute, the dispute was over by that time.
It seems to me that the regulations fail to define clearly when a dispute is ended. It may be difficult to arrive at a clear definition applicable in all cases. If it is, I believe that the responsibility for deciding when a dispute is over should be transferred from the insurance officer to the Secretary of State for Employment, who has within his Department resources to make a proper analysis of these situations.
The present national insurance system seems to me to place too much power in the hands of the insurance officer and too little in the hands of Ministers accountable


to Parliament. This seems to leave Members of Parliament powerless to represent the interests of their constituents, and can only lead to disillusionment and cynicism towards democratic politics.
I urge my hon. Friend to investigate the possibility of changes in the regulations which would give the Government and Parliament real power to help the people whom we are supposed to represent. First, there should be power for the Secretary of State to take a direct role in speeding up the hearing of appeals where delays occur and where his intervention is requested. Second, I believe that claimants affected by excessive delays in settlement of their claims should have a right of appeal direct to the Secretary of State where they prefer the Secretary of State to determine the matter.
Third, the system must be speeded up generally by a reduction in the 21 days allowed to the insurance officer to appeal against tribunal decisions. Since the decision to appeal can cause severe hardship to people awaiting benefit, there is a powerful case for restricting appeals by the insurance officer against local tribunal decisions. There may be a strong case made for laying down certain criteria upon which the insurance officer may appeal and saying that on no other criteria may an appeal be lodged.
There may be a strong case also for saying that the approval of the Secretary of State should have to be sought and obtained by the insurance officer before an appeal is lodged. If every decision of the local appeal tribunal is to be open to challenge by the insurance officer, the system of local tribunals can become farcical.
I trust that my hon. Friend can supply answers to some of the points that I have raised tonight, and perhaps answer me by letter on others. I want him to give an assurance that he will look closely at the whole system and the way that unemployment benefit and the appeal machinery functions, bearing in mind the hardship which is caused. I hope also that he can give an assurance that the Government will closely investigate the delays in the machine and, together with the National Insurance Commissioners, try to improve a system which has proved to be ramshackle, inefficient and a cause

of major suffering to many people in disputes.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) for the way in which he has put his case. I can well understand the forcefulness with which he spoke. For some considerable time, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and I have been well aware of the concern that is felt by my hon. Friend in particular and by other hon. Members on behalf of those of their constituents who have been adversely affected by the dispute at the Isle of Grain power station site.
My hon. Friend has raised this matter previously with my right hon. Friend in correspondence in November. There was a meeting between him, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security towards the end of November, and my right hon. Friend wrote him a further letter of explanation shortly afterwards. I can therefore tell the House and my hon. Friend's constituents that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in working on their behalf.
I welcome this opportunity to explain the working of the unemployment benefit system in this rather difficult and complex case. On 15th June 1976 about 950 workers employed on the site by Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. withdrew their labour following a dispute over the provision of, and payment for, protective overalls for those working in excessively dusty conditions. These workers were later issued with dismissal notices, to take effect from 30th June 1976, and many subsequently claimed unemployment benefit. Claims were also made by employees of other firms affected by the stoppage, and I shall come to those later.
On 7th July 1976—three weeks after the original dispute started—the insurance officer concerned, operating as the first of the independent adjudicating authorities, considered test claims covering all types of worker affected by the dispute. He decided in each case to disqualify the claimants from receiving unemployment benefit. Whatever one might think about that decision, it was


taken in good faith and in good time. No one can complain about the time. This was done under Section 19 of the Social Security Act 1975, which at that time provided that a person was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he had lost employment because of stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment unless he could prove that he himself was not participating in, or financing, or directly interested in, the dispute and, further, that he did not belong to a grade or class of workers any of whom were so participating, financing or directly interested. Several of the test claimants subsequently appealed against the insurance officer's decision, and appeal cases were prepared and forwarded to the Chatham local tribunal on 13th August 1976.
Nobody could say that there was any undue delay there. It takes time to prepare an appeal. The unions involved had to consult their legal advisers.
I now come to the crux of my hon. Friend's case. Four test case claimants and four individual claimants, were involved. The main unions involved were the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Engineering and Construction Branch) and the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers. Other people affected were members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians; the Transport and General Workers' Union; General and Municipal Workers' Union; Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union and the National Association of Sheet Metal Workers, Coppersmiths and Heating and Domestic Engineers. Others may also have been involved.
Because of the number of parties involved in the appeal—a solicitor was also involved—and the difficulty of finding a date that was convenient for all con-concerned, the hearing, which would normally have been convened within two or three weeks, was not held until 22nd September 1976. On that date the local tribunal sat from 2.15 p.m. to 6.20 p.m., when proceedings were adjourned.
In view of the complexity of the case, it was clearly necessary to recall the same tribunal for the resumed hearing, and this together with the recurrent problem of finding a mutually convenient date for all the parties involved in the

appeal, led to the hearing not being re convened until 10th November 1976. That was a delay of about eight weeks after the first part of the appeal was taken.
On this occasion the local tribunal completed its work and gave decisions allowing the appeals in every case, on the ground that the stoppage of work was due not to a trade dispute but to a dispute concerning the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, 1974.
Payment of the unemployment benefit to which the appeals related was, however, suspended under the Social Security (General Benefit) Regulations 1974, as the insurance officer had, within the required space of 21 days, given notice of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner against the decision of the local tribunal.
My hon. Friend has criticised the insurance officer because he left it, so to speak, until the last day before entering his appeal. With respect to my hon. Friend and those who may share his views, this was a very complicated legal matter, involving not merely the normal legislation, namely, the Social Security Act 1975 and the regulations associated therewith, but also the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The insurance officer had to prepare the grounds of the appeal. I have with me the case that the insurance officer stated for the benefit of the commissioner. My hon. Friend may have seen it. There is no secret about it. I have read it through. Many cases are quoted. It is rather like a legal case stated. In fact, it is a legal case stated, basically, under the terms of the National Insurance Acts. It is very complicated, and obviously it took some time to prepare. I do not think that we should in any way hold the insurance officer to be at fault for having taken time fully to prepare his case, because of the complications involved.
This was not the normal case of a trade dispute. It was a complicated case, involving considerations of whether there was a trade dispute and whether the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 was involved, as the original appeal tribunal had held.
The Chief Commissioner's hearing of this appeal has been set for 24th February 1977.
I come to my hon. Friend's point about the ending of the stoppage. Although the original dispute over protective clothing was settled at about the end of November 1976, normal working at the site could not be resumed for a considerable time, and the adjudicating authorities did not adjudge the stoppage of work to have ended until 15th January 1977.
My hon. Friend said that there seemed to have been a great delay, because the dispute had stopped before. Paragraph 17 of the insurance officer's case to the Chief Commissioner states:
A stoppage of work at a place of employment ends, I submit, when there is a general resumption of work, or"—
as in this case—
if the return to work is gradual, when a sufficient number of employees are back at work or are replaced so that the work is no longer being stopped or hindered to any significant extent.
Section 19 of the principal Act provides that the disqualification for benefit applies throughout the duration of the stoppage, notwithstanding that the dispute which caused that stoppage may already have been resolved. Thus, although the local tribunal's decision was to remove the disqualification, the effect of the insurance officer's appeal, made within 21 days, was to suspend the payment of benefit, arid this suspension continued until the stoppage ended on 15th January.
If the commissioner upholds the insurance officer's appeal, benefit previously suspended will not be due at all. If however the commissioner agrees with the local tribunal that disqualification is not appropriate, benefit that was claimed during the stoppage and which is otherwise found to be payable will of course be paid. The appeal is, as I have said, shortly to be heard by the Chief Commissioner, and I cannot comment on the merits of the case.
I now turn to those workers on the Isle of Grain site who, although not employed by Babcock and Wilcox, had to be laid off as a result of the original dispute. Unemployment benefit claims from such workers were received during June and July and the insurance officer gave decisions on test claims so that on 22nd July 1976 a memorandum was sent to the unemployment benefit officers concerned

advising them to treat as straightforward all claims from employees of firms other than Babcock and Wilcox in certain occupations. Those in other occupations, however, were deemed to be in the same grade or class as the Babcock and Wilcox workers and hence disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit.
Lay-offs from the site continued to increase but, in early November, the insurance officer decided that the non-Babcock and Wilcox employees did not have the same place of employment as the disputants and therefore escaped disqualification. Review decisions on all those already disqualified were given on 22nd November 1976. Those people will have had their unemployment benefit duly paid to them.
I hope that I have given the House and my hon. Friend an idea of the complexity of this case and the working of the unemployment benefit system in relation to it. I think I should add that those claimants who have been denied benefit, pending the outcome of the adjudication procedure, will have been able to claim supplementary benefit for their families although not for themselves. I accept that in that situation there may be hardship. I do not seek to minimise that. The crux of the matter is that the unemployment benefit system, with its three-stage independent adjudication procedure giving scope for appeal and counter-appeal, is fair to the interests of both claimants and contributors generally. Sometimes, however, there is unavoidable delay in finally settling disputed claims, a delay which, in a case as involved as the Isle of Grain dispute—which is the most involved case that I have known in my 10 months in the Department—can last several months.
The adjudicating authorities are, of course, quite independent and could in no way be made subject to ministerial or departmental pressure to expedite procedures. I gear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about examining this aspect. I undertake to give some consideration to the matter and to write to him on the suggestion he has made. The adjudicating authorities try, however, to deal with cases involving possible hardship as speedily as possible.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that, from the first of this month, a person who becomes unemployed because of a trade


dispute will no longer have to prove that he is not financing the dispute, and the further provision relating to the grade or class of worker has been abolished. These easements in the disqualification provision have been brought into effect by amendments included in the Employment Protection Act 1975. Whether these changes would have affected the decisions taken in the Isle of Grain dispute, had they been in operation at the time, is something that I would prefer not to

discuss so long as the matter is sub judice.
Although I can understand my hon. Friend's concern, I very much hope that the hearing set down for 24th February will finalise the matter and satisfactorily resolve this complex problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.